I feel that we might be moving to a consensus that
JSecurity Logging API == SLF4J Logging API
functionality wise, size wise, and class number wise. The logical
conclusion is then obvious.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
I'm completely open to delaying the vote. However, I am curious as
to your thoughts. Do you think there are more opinions out there?
Or that we haven't fully discussed it?
I started to feel like we were going in circles, repeating the same
arguments over and over. And no one new was contributing opinions.
That's why I suggested the vote.
On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
With my champion/mentor hat on I would have to say that this vote
is premature.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
I'm calling for a vote to use a thin wrapper API (that already
exists,
just not integrated) as our components' primary interface for
logging
functionality. This would not be a logging framework, but just
simply
delegate to any implementation: Commons Logging, SLF4J, etc.
+1 will be a vote in favor of incorporating this change.
-1 will be a vote in favor of NOT incorporating this change.
0 will be the usual abstain vote.
Thanks,
Les
