http://issues.jsecurity.org/browse/JSEC-117
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was contacted via private email yesterday about a company that wishes to > use JSecurity in their product, but they were concerned about our use of > Commons Logging, citing the now familiar classloader issues. It was > interesting timing because of my proposal to use SLF4J last week. > > This gent's recommendation was that we have our own (very minimal) Log > interface that we would use in our classes instead of Commons Logging. He > brought up a number of cases of difficulty implementing frameworks in > companies that have their own proprietary logging framework (events, > monitoring, etc), and said it would be much easier and more flexible if they > could implement their own version of a Log interface to do what they need, > using their companies' APIs. > > I think it is a good idea, and would be super easy - it is basically one > interface (Log) and maybe a 2nd (LogFactory, whatever). Then our default > implementation could use the JVM logger or SLF4J to allow any number of > pluggable logging implementations. This provides greater flexibility for > any environment. We already do the same thing for caching (Cache, > CacheManager) which in turn delegates to Caching product implementation > specific classes (ehcache, JCache, etc). Same concept. > > The thing that sounds clean to me about this, is that if it was > implemented, we would have NO required dependencies on any 3rd party > library. That just feels sexy. But we can still have default > implementations that use our favorite infrastructure. > > Any thoughts or objections? >
