The uv3 Logger now implements a big set of specialized loggers, all of the slf4j interface, plus a few from log4j that support Java 8 lambda arguments (Supplier).
The uimaFIT ExtendedLogger implemented a few of these "named" logging variants. The conventions used are slightly different. UV3: the SEVERE/WARNING/INFO/CONFIG/FINE/FINER/FINEST were mapped: SEVERE <-> ERROR WARNING <-> WARN INFO <-> INFO CONFIG <-> INFO (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_CONFIG) FINE <-> TRACE (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_FINE) FINER <-> TRACE (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_FINER) FINEST <-> DEBUG while the uimaFIT chose: SEVERE <-> ERROR WARNING <-> WARN INFO <-> INFO CONFIG <-> not available FINE <-> TRACE FINER <-> DEBUG FINEST <-> not available Although we could keep the uimaFIT ExtendedLogger as is, this could have strange behavior for users, in that the uimaFIT methods would have one mapping, and the slf4j style ones would have another. For example: logger.debug(Object param) // a uimaFIT call logger.debug(String msg) // a slf4j style call logger.debug(String msg, Object parm) // another slf4j style call See https://www.slf4j.org/apidocs/org/slf4j/Logger.html for all of the calls... The slf4j calls would correspond to FINEST, while the uimaFIT ones would correspond to FINER. I'm wondering what's the best way to align these? -Marshall