Anders, My take is that this will be the 5th change that I've asked for to get the SLF4J Simple implementation to work. Initially I had your position and I tried to keep it as simple as possible the provide the same behaviour, but for embedded environments and concurrent operations I think we're just going to run into more of the same. We can continue patching the simple implementation and make it do things it wasn't designed to or just switch to Logback. I think I gave it a best effort but I don't want to patch SLF4J Simple anymore.
On Dec 9, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: > Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to add my > perspective on this topic. > > For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of the more > advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already also stated. > Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while we > investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then select an > implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple can't > do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option > unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies? I'll > leave that to others working with that to decide. > > But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my choice would > be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being a past > experience where I developed an audit logging solution based on logback, > where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies when it came > to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with this fixed > though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when there is > proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that he will > help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working with log4j2 > will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I know Ceki's. > > But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would be so much > better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release and do > a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although using > slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching impl later > on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some people do > solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar plugin for > example). > > /Anders > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> >>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org <javascript:;>>: >>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2. >>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy. >>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it. >>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in case of any >>>> issue we could have. >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is actually >>> going, but I'm firmly opposed >>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3. >>> >>> >> +1 >> >> >>> Kristian >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org<javascript:;> >>> >>> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
