[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12858639#action_12858639
]
Mel Martinez commented on PDFBOX-693:
-------------------------------------
Ted,
For my purposes, JCL is indeed already 'in the game' having passed vetting.
If I were starting a project today, I would probably chose JUL purely on the
basis of not having to vet anything beyond the standard JRE. I have no strong
preference for the API of any of these packages over the others, but I do have
an aversion for adding external dependencies (i.e. on top of what is already
provided by the standard JRE) when the functional benefit is so slim. Yes,
there are things that other logging packages do that JUL does not. I have yet
to be involved in any project where those additional 'features' have had any
impact at all. And I have been involved in a lot of java projects.
And that aversion of mine is compounded by my current project's
meta-constraints. Adding any 3rd party modules is non trivial.
For PDFBox purposes, I generally agree with what Jukka said.
> 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.
