On 11 December 2012 21:49, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > 2012/12/11 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>: > > 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* > > > > Any technical definition of this gate ? >
All integration tests pass and no significant performance regression (I would say >5% is significant but I agree we do not have a strict measure of that). My first mail on this thread is awaiting confirmation from you that log4j2 meets the above. > > > 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. > > > > I have already explained my opinion in other threads. So nothing more > to add (maybe I'm lazy for copy/paste :-)) > I tend to follow Dan explanations as it's similar to mine. > So -1 for logback. > > > > > 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:;> > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
