For some additional context, go over to the Solr mail archive and
search for "Logging, SLF4J" or see http://lucene.markmail.org/message/gxifhjzmn6hgloy7?q=Solr+logging+SLF4J
I personally don't like JUL and would be against using it. I could,
maybe, just maybe, be talked into SLF4J.
The other thing I worry about is that the logging will probably be
carefully crafted at first, but then will grow and grow and end up in
some tight loops, etc.
Ah, for the days of the C preprocessor, where we could easily deliver
a version of Lucene w/ logging and without for this kind of
debugging... ;-)
-Grant
On Dec 5, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
John Wang wrote:
If we were to depend on a jar for logging, then why not log4j or
commons-logging?
Lucene is used by many applications. Many of those applications
already perform some kind of logging. We'd like whatever Lucene
adds to fit in with their existing logging framework, not conflict
with it. Thus the motivation to use a meta-logging framwork like
commons logging or slf4j. And articles like the following point
towards slf4j, not commons logging.
http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
