[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12858501#action_12858501
]
Mel Martinez commented on PDFBOX-693:
-------------------------------------
As much as I like the idea behind SLF4J, I am going to vote
-1
on this suggestion. This has nothing to do with the merits of SLF4J vs JUL or
JCL, but everything to do with conservatism being the watchword for my
project's deployments. I have a very difficult time getting approval for each
and every jar I have to add.
If anything my personal preference would be to just revert it all to JUL and
remove even the use of JCL, but that's just the reductionist in me talking.
Yes, I know that sounds like heresy in this oh-so-religious topic (logging).
As I say, my motives are driven more by deployment constraints (which are not
always technical) rather than any particular technical merits of the various
logging APIs.
> Migrate to slf4j from java.util.logging / commons logging
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PDFBOX-693
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-693
> Project: PDFBox
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sascha Szott
>
> Please consider a migration from java.util.logging / commons logging to slf4j.
> At the moment two different logging APIs are in use. As far as I have
> observed, commons logging is used as the primary logging framework with the
> exception of class org.apache.pdfbox.encoding.Encoding in which
> java.util.logging is used.
> By using slf4j, the choice of the logging API could be left up to the user.
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
