You seem to ignore that this is absolutely possible with my approach. Drop in Jsecurity.jar, slf4j.jar and your custom SLF4J implementation, and it works. No JSecurity-specific configuration required.
My suggestion affords more possibilities than with SLF4J alone. That's the bottom line and what this is all about. For the extremely minimal effort, it is a no-brainer for me. On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An organization is going to get much more bang for their buck to write an > adapter for SLF4J or commons-logging. Because ANY open source project they > use is going to use that. > > I would go INSANE if I had to write a custom log adapter for every open > source project library I depended on. Can you imagine that? > > This is PRECISELY the reason that SLF4J and commons-logging exist - to > prevent practices like this. This is a practice that was common in the > early 90s, before commons-logging caught on. > > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> >> On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >> >>> C'mon guys - I'm not asking you to do _anything_. There is literally >>> NOTHING that you have to do. It already works! It enables more >>> end-users! Why on earth would you want to shut this down when there >>> are _NO_ negative effects? I just don't get that. Just use it and be >>> happy! Why can't you let me have this? :) >> >> Why can't your contract pay you to implement an SLF4J -> Acme Co logging >> adapter? Seems like they would then get more bang for their buck as it >> would be applicable to other projects as well. >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> > >
