On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15.11.2013, at 03:29, Chetan Mehrotra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 3. Do away with OSGi config for LogWriters completely. FOr backward >> compatibility this feature would continue to be supported > > Why? I actually like it very much that there is a UI with help text for e.g. > the formatting string, instead of having to understand some special xml > format...
Totally agree with Alex. I think it is safe to assume that the existing file-based logging would represent the primary use cases for logging, even with the enhanced options provided by Logback. So why not continue to make the most common use case simple? XML file editing should only be necessary in edge cases (or not-so-edge cases which we just haven't had time to simplify yet). Also, the statements "...do away with..." and "...would continue to be supported..." would seem to be contradictory. > > And it's 2013, we are still wrapping another generic logging handling around > another one? I'm guessing that Logback wasn't interested in adding first class OSGi support. Which is really too bad as that would have been the best option all around IMHO. Justin > > Cheers, > Alex
