On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:01:40 +0900 "Trustin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 3:34 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Trustin Lee wrote: > > > <snip/> > > > > > However, taking > > > the item #4 into picture, it leads me to think we need a thin > > > built-in layer for logging that is dedicated to MINA. > > Please, don't ! This is MINA, a Network framework, not a Logger > > framework ! We already have so many meta-meta-meta-loger around > > there:) > > Yeah, it's a framework and I don't want it to force others to use the > logging framework of our preference. Why should we do that? Because > we are satisfied with SLF4J? Yes I am, but it simply doesn't make any > sense to other people. > > As David said, what would people think if he or she has mina-core.jar, > slf4j-log4j12.jar, log4j.jar and commons-logging.jar? > > Moreover, what I am suggesting is not about embeding another logging > framework but adding a few logger classes, which is minimal, and it > will not be used anywhere outside of MINA code itself. > > Trustin Hi, First of all, logging is an important issue for me, because it's a main selling point of the product I work on and the most dangerous feature for my flash memory based systems. But I'm not that obsessed too ;) I was quite skeptical with having *another* dependency with slf4j, but I can say I'm satisfied today. No problems with slf4j, and I'm happy knowing I can change the underlying framework *easily*. We all agree configuring slf4j is a piece of cake (drop the good jar). I can understand seeing another jar in the dependencies list can annoy some potential MINA users (who said politics ?:D). I think what Trustin got in mind is something *very* thin so perhaps if we see the code, everybody will calm down and think it's a good mix of the two world. Anyway if the thin layer can't make everybody agree why not simply provide some scripts/tools/whatever for quickly patch the code for removing the dependencies and inserting your logging statement ? Julien
