Interesting. But the sysout-over-slf4j project declares:
> The sysout-over-slf4j module is explicitly not intended to encourage the > use of System.out or System.err for logging purposes. There is a > significant performance overhead attached to its use, and as such it > should be considered a stop-gap for your own code until you can alter it > to use SLF4J directly, or a work-around for poorly behaving third party > modules. As far as Solr is concerned, SLF4J is good, IMO. Adapters are available to log to basically anything, and the user is in control of that by providing their logging jar of choice. ~ David Robert Muir wrote > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Shawn Heisey < > solr@ > > wrote: > >> >> For logs that are in test code itself, using sysout or syserr is probably >> a good option. The Solr code that is being tested will (in most cases) >> pull in a dependency on slf4j because Logger is ubiquitous. That's what >> I >> was referring to. >> >> > I'm not sure it has to forever. For example, in trunk we could decide to > use jetty's logging class instead, so solr has no hard dependency on slf4j > at all. > If its in the classpath it would get used, but otherwise stuff just goes > to > System.err.println. > > Or solr could just use System.err.println, and if someone wants logging > they can redirect it (e.g. > http://projects.lidalia.org.uk/sysout-over-slf4j/ > ). > > Lots of possibilities to remove logging jars! ----- Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SLF4J-Binding-Warnings-tp4064166p4066182.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
