[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-233?page=comments#action_12428513 ] Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRMINA-233: -------------------------------------------
I will add as a comment something I already said on the mailing list, to be sure that it is stored in a remanent place : -> this is not because MINA does not use logs extensivly that slf4j is bad or should be removed. In my mind, and for the sake of people who maintain the code, and for users who want to understand what's going on when they have problems, MINA does not have anough logs. Logs are *good*. Using Logs is like writting test case. It's mandatory. With at least 2 api to write logs, not doing so is a sin. Amen ! (IMHO ;) Hey, no offense ! Just wanted to express my opinion : I *like* logs, a bad logs is always better than no log at all, and good logs save big time, because on a production system, you can't step through the code with your favorite IDE debugger. Beleive me or not, I prefer 'grepping' and 'sedding' 2.5 Gb of logs than stepping through 10K lines of code... > Provide an extra thin logging layer for those who don't want SLF4J > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: DIRMINA-233 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-233 > Project: Directory MINA > Issue Type: Task > Reporter: Trustin Lee > > As MINA gets more and more popular, the number of people who doesn't want > SLF4J increased because they were using other logging frameworks such as > Log4J or commons-logging. We know SLF4J provides what exactly Log4J or > commons-logging provides, but it's just a matter of preference. We need to > meet as many people's preference as we can as a general network application > framework. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
