Hi, i think many users are still using log4j in their projects. Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the user. But maybe I'm wrong.
Regards Bernd On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ganesh<gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Is this an invalid veto? > >>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied >>> by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security >>> exposure, negatively affects performance, /etc./). A veto without a >>> justification is invalid and has no weight. << >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto) > > Best regards, > Ganesh > > Bernd Bohmann schrieb: >> >> +1 away from commons logging >> -1 force to use jul >> >> I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons >> logging. >> >> And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has >> jul a similar feature? >> >> Regards >> >> Bernd >> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew >> Robinson<andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> +0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from >>> commons logging as it has too many issues. >>> >>> -Andrew >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<werner.p...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning >>>>> that). >>>>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I >>>>> think >>>>> we are fine with that, at least I hope... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this >>>> regard. >>>> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if >>>> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a >>>> single line of code has to be changed. >>>> Just my 2c! >>>> >>>> >>>> Werner >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >
