On Tuesday, 11 December 2012, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > My thoughts: > 99.5% (or more) of the maven users will not care one way or another what > logging impl we use. They won't configure anything beyond -X. They won't > try changing loggers. They won't muck with the configs. Etc.. They > just run "mvn" and expect it to work. > > For the remaining <0.5%, no matter what we do, we will need to document > things clearly about how to configure things. For these folks, they are > generally "experts" and thus a couple extra steps to replace a logging > framework, edit configs, etc… is not a big deal at all. (again, DOCUMENT > this all clearly or provide a nice maven plugin or something to do it for > them) > > > My preference, in order: > > slf4j-jdk14 > slf4j-simple > log4j2 > slf4j-log4j > > and then a big gap to logback. > > The first two are there as they would provide the least amount of "extra > dependencies", complexity, etc… That said, we know slf4j-simple has > issues. Not sure if anyone has even tried slf4j-jdk14. For our CLI > case, I don't see any advantage of logback over log4j2 or slf4j-log4j. > If the entire argument is around wanting something "battle tested", go for > slf4j-log4j. It's certainly used by more projects than logback and more > people would already know it's configuration options. Personally, I find > the "number of projects" argument annoying and mostly irrelevant. (and at > least 2 of the "Apache 8" projects that are on the logback homepage don't > use logback, they now use slf4j-log4j) > > Thus, it comes down to two major things for me: > > 1) License issues - (sorry Stephen, this IS an issue) I fully plan to > vote -1 for logback if/when presented to the PMC for approval. There are > very good options that would work just as well for our needs that are not > EPL.
My points are: 1. that we should make sure the selected implementation passes the technical gate *first* 2. That committers should not worry about the outcome of a PMC vote when making their recommendation on implementation. If the PMC chooses to say no to a specific dependency on the basis of its license *then* the community will presumably have a second option that passes the technical gate and can fall back to that... But the very first question that committers should consider is the technical basis. I don't care what criteria people use as long as technical is #1. > > 2) Community - Ceki is great, no doubt about it, but at the end of the > day, logback is pretty much a one man show. Apache is more about > "community" and "community over code" and all that. I strongly prefer > something that has a community behind it, or, at the very least, is open to > developing a community behind it. Major bonus points if that community > already contains Maven PMC members/committers on it. If *we* run into > issues, I strongly prefer that *we* can get those issues fixed. > > If two options are functionally and technically equivalent (within > reasonable limits), then I'll take the community driven, permissive > licensed version. Thank you for stating your criteria I wish everyone else could follow your example > > That's my $0.02 worth. > > Dan > > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I looked around a bit more today and I don't think SLF4J Simple is > viable long term, I don't want to patch it anymore as I would have to do a > day's work to make changes that keep the performance levels up, get it > reviewed and released, and I honestly don't think it's worth it anymore. I > would rather spend my time building out the plugin test cases and help to > finish the classloader blocking of SLF4J. I don't mind spending time > getting it all working but I don't want to waste my time on an > implementation we're going to toss. > > > > After a conversation with the PMC it will require a vote to accept > Logback which is EPL but I wanted to ask committers and interested users > about using Logback. I believe Logback is the best choice as it's the most > mature and battle tested implementation because once it goes in it's likely > not ever to come out. Many of us are users and have integration experience > with Logback and it's what I use everyday for logging in all my other > projects and I've been a happy user for years. I see Logback as best of > breed and widely adopted including 8 projects at Apache. > > > > There's no point in asking the PMC to vote on the acceptance of Logback > if it's not acceptable by the community. If there are interested users I > would really like to hear what you think because you're the ones who will > have to live with the choice that is made. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason van Zyl > > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > > Founder, Apache Maven > > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To do two things at once is to do neither. > > > > -- Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> > >
