Agreed. (*Chris*) On May 16, 2014 5:14 PM, "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> Christoph, I don't think the problem is in using SLF4J in itself. The > problem is it's not appropriate to switch logging frameworks in a patch > release. Adding a dependency is going to cause major upgrade headaches -- > especially logging dependencies. If anything is done, this will be on the > 2.5 or 3.0 radar. > > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Christoph Nenning < > christoph.nenn...@lex-com.net> wrote: > > > > > Yes, we could use Onyx's interface mechanism, but I think SLF4j's is > > > > probably more stable and definitely more supported. So I'd probably > > > > recommend that we extract the SLF4j support object and use it > directly > > (or > > > > at least make it the default). If it's something that you're > > interested > > > > in, I'd have to fill out the forms to become a committer on Struts. > > Where > > > > would I find that information? > > > > > > I'm not sure if this the right move, switching to SLF4j over our > > > custom solution. Please can we explore this topic a bit? > > > > > > > > > Here are my 2 cent about logging: > > > > > > Recently it seems to be a best practice for libraries to depent on slf4j. > > > > The advanced expressions of Onyx remind me of OGNL. It would feel more > > "struts style" if expressions could be used for logging. > > > > > > As long as the application can choose the logging impl, and struts > > messages are appearing, I don't care what api struts uses. > > I'm also fine with the current struts logging wrapper. > > > > > > Regards, > > Christoph > > > > This Email was scanned by Sophos Anti Virus > > >
