In that case, should log4j log a warning if more than one provider is included?
Tim > On Mar 15, 2022, at 1:44 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I would not be in favor of this change. Providers have been designed since > day one that highest wins and it is documented - > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/extending.html#LoggerContextFactory > > <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/extending.html#LoggerContextFactory>. > > > The fact that the user was surprised may be true, but the ordering was > intentional. If you include log4j-to-slf4j it means you want to log to > SLF4J. In that case log4j-core shouldn’t even be present. > > Ralph > >> On Mar 14, 2022, at 4:37 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:54 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> Regarding your remark about providers... `Provider#getPriority()` has the >>> following javadoc: *"Gets the priority (natural ordering) of this >>> Provider"*, >>> hence I would have expected it to work the same lowest-comes-first way, but >>> apparently not – relying on your assessment here. I am also inclined to >>> align them with the lowest-comes-first strategy, though this might have a >>> bigger impact if there are 3rd party providers out there in the wild. Maybe >>> others can weigh in here? >> >> I can provide some additional evidence supporting the necessity to >> invert the order. At least one user on Stack Overflow was surprised >> that after adding `log4j-core` to his project, the loggers are still >> of type `org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLogger`: >> >> https://stackoverflow.com/q/70487959/11748454 >> >> Piotr >
