Hi, At MyFaces we also had this discussion a couple of times [1] and, while most of us liked Slf4j, we chose to go for JUL [2], because of the dependencies.
[1] http://markmail.org/search/?q=slf4j++list:org.apache.myfaces.dev#query:slf4j%20%20list%3Aorg.apache.myfaces.dev+page:1+mid:htdphhtc64lrm3aj+state:results [2] http://markmail.org/search/?q=JUL+list:org.apache.myfaces.dev#query:JUL%20list%3Aorg.apache.myfaces.dev+page:1+mid:k67ftkn6d26h4uwn+state:results Just my 2 cents... Regards, Jan-Kees 2010/3/3 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Sorry to bring this up again. > > I now looked at many Apache projects for the last few days and talked with > a few people. > > Basically they all switched over to java.util.logging! > > With jdk1.5 the most problems are gone and it is actually now a pretty > usable standard. Plus it is THE standard on EE, we don't need any further > dependency and we can be really sure that there is no classpath conflict > somwhere (I remember what a jarmageddon this have been in the past with > commons-logging). > > So I strongly vote for not pulling in another 3rd party jar nor doing it > ourselfs, but simply use the standard java mechanisms. Nowadays this is > simply the way to go, and I think all the other solutions will vanish in the > next few years. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Do, 25.2.2010: > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Using of Logginf in OWB > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: Donnerstag, 25. Februar, 2010 14:56 Uhr > > Actually yes but it also adds extra > > jars. Instead of adding extra jars could > > we use it with reflection mechanism? WDYT? If it really > > needs a jar on > > classpath, then I think we can live with it. > > > > I am also +1 on using slf4j after reading some documents > > :) > > > > Thanks; > > > > --Gurkan > > > > 2010/2/25 James Carman <[email protected]> > > > > > -1 to #3, why re-invent the wheel? It's more > > code that you have to > > > implement, test, maintain, and enhance. > > > > > > +1 to #2 and SLF4J > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu > > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi; > > > > > > > > Last couple of days there were some good > > discussion on how to proceed > > > with > > > > logging in OWB. There are some approaches: > > > > > > > > 1* Remove any hard log dependency library from > > classpath(For example : > > > > removing log4.jar from classpath) and use java > > logging. > > > > 2* Use some third-party facades, for example > > using commons-logging and > > > slf4j > > > > etc. I read many complaints about using > > commons-logging in projects > > > because > > > > of classloading issues and memory leaks etc. But > > no knowledge on using > > > > slf4j. > > > > 3* Define our own interface and implement it with > > other logger > > > frameworks. > > > > At runtime, OWB selects which one to use. > > > > > > > > Related issue is : http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-300 > > > > > > > > My Comment: > > > > ---------------------- > > > > I do not think that using only standard java > > logging is good. Clients > > > want > > > > to use other logging frameworks with OWB > > replacing standard java logging. > > > > But also, I do not want that logging will be the > > most complex part of the > > > > OWB. Logging must be simple. > > > > > > > > Instead of using third party libraries and their > > jars (managing their > > > jars, > > > > adding extra classpath jars etc.), I just want to > > create a our own simple > > > > facade(interface),and implement it with "log4j" > > and "java logging". But > > > > log4j.jar will be optional in "pom.xml" therefore > > there is no hard > > > > dependency to log4j.jar. After that we can > > provide configuration options > > > to > > > > clients which logging framework they use. (Using > > system properties, owb > > > > configuration file etc.).Standard logging will be > > Java Logging. If anyone > > > > really wants to use another logging framework, it > > must implement and > > > > contribute :) > > > > > > > > +1 for the item (3) > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gurkan Erdogdu > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz > gegen Massenmails. > http://mail.yahoo.com >
