Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : > I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix > for the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency > with parallel builds and who knows what else. This will patch/change #5 and > many hours of trying to get SLF4J Simple to work but I think we're pushing > the simple implementation beyond its scope. So I'd just like to put in > Logback and be done with it. > > There are at least three of us opposed to using a new logging framework, logging *implementation*, please, not framework: the framework is slf4j-api, on which our code will have much dependency. The logging implementation is far less invasive choice (even if not completely null).
> but I don't think there is anyone against using Logback. why this provocation? (should I say lack of respect for others opinion?) > I honestly don't think > there is any rational argument for not using Logback, so after doing all > the SLF4J work and making a best effort to use SLF4J Simple I think it's > pointless to pursue that path any longer and put in Logback. we'll need to wait for 3.1.1 and a vote to have a chance to stop tension about this: whatever choice is done, there will be some devs unhappy who will have to live with it notice I won't be able to reply for the next half day, my intent with this reply is just to avoid one more re-spin of a feeling that the vote won't happen and let Olivier once more jump on the case I just hope I won't have to read a lot of replies to this tonight when I'm back from work and loose my time carefully reading if anything new or interesting is written Regards, Hervé > On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm a little bit lost too. > > Thus for now in 3.1.0 we didn't want to provide a new logging impl fwk > > (for > > many - good - reasons) but the last bug discovered by Kristian can be > > solved only > > * by having a fix from slf4j (but it isn't sure that the patch makes sense > > - to be validated by Ceki) > > * or by using a more evolved impl like logback (or log4j ...). > > I think that everyone's will prefer the first solution if possible but if > > we cannot we'll have the question to select the impl. > > Do we need to vote ? Is there really a question logback vs log4j(2) ? > > Like I said in another thread I'll understand if the project decide to > > choose log4j2 even if it is young because we want to support another ASF > > initiative (And I'm sure we won't have to regret it, and we'll have a > > really good support from its team) but in a general case I would prefer to > > choose logback which is today the reference logging framework (I that case > > we need to have a PMC vote to accept an external component under EPL > > license http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies ?). > > > > What do we need (for 3.1.0) ? What do we do ? > > > > Arnaud > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:53 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 > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. > > -- Benjamin Franklin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
