On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Nathan Bubna <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the Logkit stuff can go. That's pretty unpopular at this point. > > I, however, am opposed to a switch to pure commons-logging or SLF4j, > even in Velocity 2.0. I do not think static logging is appropriate > for Velocity. A bridge to a static logger system is fine, but direct > use is not. Velocity is not a development framework. It is an > oft-embedded component. Logging should be optional and injectable, > something people use when debugging and can control per-instance, not > just statically. It might seem like we have a lot of "dependencies" > that are only used for one little logging class. But these are all > optional at runtime. So the end result is a smaller number of > dependencies and freedom for those who wish to see logs to get them > wherever is convenient. Personally, i find the ServletLogChute to be > the most convenient, as servlet logs are a great place for "exuberant" > logging output to be controlled. > > If we move to static logging, we give up logger injectability and > freedom to leave out all logging dependencies. I've become rather > fond of both, and i think a few small classes and compile-time-only > dependencies are a small price to pay for those. > > If anything, the future i see for "logging" in Velocity is a move to > an event/subscriber model, where users could subscribe to certain > types of events (and not others). For a component like this, > organizing debugging output by "event type" makes more sense than > organizing it by super-imposed log-levels. We would still, however, > want to provide some convenient subscribers that would log chosen > events with the usual logging facilities. So those compile time > dependencies are not likely to go anywhere. See the 2nd-to-last > comment in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELOCITY-168 for the > source of this idea.
excuse me, 3rd to last comment (from Michal). > Of course, i'm not sure when/if i'll get the time to do that. But > that's my vision for 2.0. And in the meantime, while i am limited in > the dev time i can spend on Velocity, i am still a regular user and > would very much not like to see support for things like logging to the > servlet log or leaving out all logging dependencies disappear. :) > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Antonio Petrelli > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all >> I noticed that Velocity has some obsolete logging classes. Skimming >> the source code I see, in fact that their tasks are accomplished by >> more standard logging frameworks. >> Moreover Velocity already depends on Commons-Logging (though I'd >> prefer to depend on SLF4J), so framework independence is already >> achieved. >> I would like to kill all of these classes and remove dependencies to >> logkit and servlet 2.3 (yes! only ServletLogChute depends on it). >> I will do it in the sandbox, as usual. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Antonio >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
