2014-06-06 10:52 GMT+02:00 Johannes Geppert <joh...@gmail.com>:
>>I think that's the main case in this whole discussion - it isn't about
>>users and what kind of logging library they are using. That aspect
>>must stay as is, users cannot notice any change.
> Exact the user should be able to use any logging framework he want to
> choose.
> But if Log4j2 facade provides this feature why not use it?
Because it's a huge and boring task - you must rewrite each and every
logging statement to match Log4j2/SLF4j - XWork logger is using #0,
#1,... for params substitution, where Log4j2 is using #{} and SLF4j {}
> Logging itself is not our business or am I wrong?
It's not but we should provide the best possible integration.
If someone want to step in and replace the whole logging layer with
Log4j2/SLF4j I don't see objections. The same with Onyx, I'm not going
to block any contributors' activity.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
