Sorry for stepping into this discussion so late. -0.5 on having a "hard" dependency of jsf-api to an external logging api At least Craigs issue must be assured: developers should be able to compile their custom components against jsf-api without having the need for extra libs (commons-logging). Is this guaranteed if we only use commons-logging within methods and there is no public/protected API dependency in jsf-api? If yes, I'm -0 on that.
+1 on keeping commons-logging as the primary logging for impl, tomahawk, etc. +1 on doing more logging ;-) If we apply the well-known "IsDebugEnabled()" pattern, there should not be any performance impact. Manfred 2005/12/16, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Not the spec god here, but I'd certainly vote -1 on any > spec requirement that jsf-api has to be dependency free, > as long as those dependencies are private implementation > details. (So, you couldn't have a public or protected > logger instance.) > > The only thing that would change my mind would be > some ruling from the J2EE overlords. > > -- Adam > > > On 12/16/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > >
