You are going to have the same problem with Slf4j 1.8 IIRC. Gary
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks > > It is going to be unpleasant but we need to revisit a highly > contentious issue of the choice of a logging APIs for HttpClient 5.0. > > I personally like Log4J2 and generally am a satisfied user of the > toolkit. However, Log4J2 logging facade APIs did accumulate a lot of > stuff that in my opinion should not have been there in the first place. > This bothers me. > > A more immediate problem with Log4J2, though, is that its logging APIs > do not play nicely with Android. Whether or not this is Log4J2 fault is > not for me to say but presently HttpClient 5.0 is incompatible with > Android due to its dependency on Log4J2 logging APIs. It is also > unclear whether this incompatibility could be resolved and when. See LO > G4J2-2133 [1] for details. > > At this point while HttpClient 5.0 is still ALPHA we could switch to > SLF4J and personally think we should. Log4J2 would still be the > preferred and the default toolkit for HttpClient 5.0 though the logging > interface would be SLF4J, not Log4J2 logging APIs. > > Please share your thoughts. > > Oleg > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2133 > > > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 11:19 +0200, Michael Osipov wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > it recently has come to my attention that Commons Logging has been > > replaced with Log4J2. Well, I proposed almost two years ago to move > > to > > SLF4J for good reasons [1]. > > People disagreed that Commons Logging is good enough and this > > discussion > > has been held several times w/o any concensus. Since people also > > disgreed this time, I obstained to changed the code even if I > > disagree > > with the consent. > > > > Some time back Oleg raised the same question on the dev mailing list > > [2]. The already existing ticket wasn't even put into consideration > > to > > inform all subscribers. Some discussion was held on the mailing > > list. > > The ticket [3] was created w/o any proper description, proposal and > > linking to any concensus and boom, a day later it was committed. > > > > As Oleg expressed here [4] a lot of users will be pissed off why > > they > > need now a new facade for a facade to do logging. Infact, as for the > > facade all/some the improvements could have landed in SLF4J after > > all. > > > > If someone wants to use Log4J2 as a logging backend that's perfectly > > fine. > > > > I am not really satisfied with the course of discussion and > > documentation of this change. It could have been way better and will > > leave a bad aftertaste. After all, the issue (list) should contain > > all > > necessary information why a change was done. It simple hasn't been > > done. > > I don't expect any client who is upgrading to search mailing lists > > for > > such answers. > > > > At the end, people will add exclusions to their POM, add the SLF4J > > bridge and log to whatever they want. > > > > Michael > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-1664 > > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg16743.html > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-1786 > > [4] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg17847.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
