Ok, I believe the EG has to sort out what they think on this issue first. If not, we'll get a TCK test in the next spec testing if there is a reliance of JSF-API on any other jar and we'll go stomach up.
regards, Martin On 12/16/05, Shane Bryzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:10 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > Can we please not get sidetracked from the core issues? > > They are: > * should we do logging via a MyFaces logging api, to avoid direct > dependencies between lots of MyFaces classes and *any* external logging > library? > * are external dependencies allowed in the API jarfile? > > Once we sort those out, then we can debate whether to choose > commons-logging or SLF4J. > > > My apologies Simon, I didn't mean to sidetrack this issue. My two cents is > that avoiding dependencies should not be a priority for the sake of itself. > If there is an external library that is compelling enough in its usefulness > then I don't see the problem with taking advantage of it. I mentioned > SLF4J, first of all because I was surprised that no-one had mentioned it > previously, and secondly because it is specifically designed to eliminate > the dependency on any single external logging library (it is not a logging > implementation itself), which seems to be the foremost goal of this thread. > > So, +1 from me for allowing an external dependency. > > Regards, > Shane > > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > Travis Reeder wrote: > > That looks like a very interesting option, I really like the formatted > > way of showing the messages and the simple runtime jar swap to switch > > implementations. > > > > Travis > > > > On 12/15/05, *Shane Bryzak* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > How about using SLF4J? (http://www.slf4j.org/) > > <http://www.slf4j.org/%29> For anyone that doesn't know what this > > is, here's an excerpt from the site: > > > > "The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is intended to serve > > as a simple facade for various logging APIs allowing to the end-user > > to plug in the desired implementation at /deployment/ time. SLF4J > > also allows for a gradual migration path > > <http://www.slf4j.org/manual.html#gradual> away from > Jakarta Commons > > Logging (JCL)." > > > > It's written by Ceki Gulcu (who also wrote Log4J) and is compatible > > with the Apache license. I'm using it successfully in production > > code right now, and the great thing about it is that it defers the > > choice of logging API to the user at deployment time. > > > > Regards, > > > > Shane > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 09:35 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > >> Hi Mario, > >> > >> Mario Ivankovits wrote: > >> > Why wouldnt you create this wrapper library under the umbrella of > >> > commns-logging? > >> > Different commons-logging libraries using static linking instead of the > >> > dynamic behaviour. > >> > Say: commons-logging-log4j, commons-logging-jdklogger > >> > >> This sort of thing is under *consideration* for commons-logging 2.0. > >> However there are a number of limitations to this approach. You can find > >> discussions on this in the commons email archives, and see experimental > >> implementations of various sorts in the commons-logging SVN tree. It's > >> not just as simple as code-it-and-release. > >> > >> > I think it isnt that a good idea if every project comes with its own > >> > wrapper library. In the worst case this will double the number of > >> > libraries used - even more logging hassle. > >> > >> What I have proposed for MyFaces is *not* the same thing at all. Have a > >> look at the code I've attached here: > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-949 > >> > >> This solution is very lightweight and has fairly good performance. > >> However as the javadoc on those classes describe, this does *not* allow > >> logging implementations to be swapped at runtime like commons-logging > >> does. The patch I've proposed requires a *recompilation* of the MyFaces > >> code in order to swap logging libraries. That's the price paid for > >> having a lightweight solution (so few lines of code). > >> > >> And that's not an approach that can be build into commons-logging! > >> > >> Despite recompilation being required, it *does* centralise the > >> dependency on the underlying library into *one* class, rather than > >> having classes all over the MyFaces library depending directly on > >> commons-logging. > >> > >> It also means that someone can come along and modify that single class > >> to use something other than commons-logging, so that MyFaces doesn't > >> depend on *any* jar with org.apache.commons.logging classes in it. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Simon > > > > > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
