On 22/07/2013 14:29, Oliver Wulff wrote:
I assume there are no dependencies within the code which would allow the users
to still give the option to use logback?
There are also direct references in the source code to Logback internal
classes (the LoggerController, for example) since the SLF4J APIs do not
expose methods for programmatically changing appender's level.
I don't see very meaningful for end users to keep with logback, Syncope
is not a general purpose framework for which it can make sense to choice
that.
log4j 2 is still in beta. Do we know when it should be released?
Soon, as far as they claim (they've already reach beta 8!), and anyway
before than 1.2.0 sees the light.
Regards.
________________________________________
From: cschneider...@gmail.com [cschneider...@gmail.com] on behalf of Christian
Schneider [ch...@die-schneider.net]
Sent: 22 July 2013 13:30
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log framework and also works great in OSGi.
Christian
2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgro...@apache.org>
Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
(with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
minimal.
Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
level.
WDYT?
[1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-**
20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc<http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
