sorry for my ignorance, but what is the advantage of logback? was there anything missing in log4j?
and I agree with alex and justin, that moving away from osgi configurability for logging contradicts all paradigms of sling :-) sling tries so hard to make everything else configurable by osgi :-) moving the config to pure xml files, would take away the possibility to configure a system with content package, http calls, etc. regards, toby On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
