On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 12:07 +0100, Bernd Bohmann wrote: > Hello, > > i think slf4j is a better alternative for logging compare to > commons-logging. I don't like to start a slf4j vs commons-logging battle. > > Just ask google. > > I will change the tobago logging to slf4j.
Asking google is a very bad idea in this case. What you get is the average opinion. And the *average* coder out there is a fool. Even sites by people claiming to be experts must be treated carefully; he who shouts loudest, and makes the boldest claims, is not always the wisest. If you do not care about supporting localised error messages, and do not intend to use slf4j-specific features like "markers" then the commons-logging API is the best because it is the simplest. Note that we are talking about just what API myfaces code should call. Other implementations than the one from commons can be used; for example slf4j provides one. Whether the commons-logging implementation is good can be debated, but there is nothing really wrong with the api - except *possibly* for localised messages. If you do care about supporting localised error messages, then I suggest you keep an eye on this thread: http://www.nabble.com/Internationalisation-of-log-messages-to14360301.html Commons-logging deliberately does not support localisation *within* the logging library, leaving that to the caller. But as raised in that thread, it is not currently clear that slf4j properly supports localisation either. The java.util.logging api does support localisation, but it's not clear to me that this is in practice useable. The default implementation is crap, and there are not many alternatives because the api is horrible to implement. It would be better if all the myfaces projects agree on some logging approach; otherwise an app using myfaces-core+myfaces-commons+trinidad +tobago might need 4 different logging wrappers in the classpath. Regards, Simon
