I think that Jeremy's point is
JSecurity Logging API == SLF4J Logging API
functionality wise, size wise, and class number wise. The community
will require that and will not accept a dummied down API. With that
said, what's the point in re-inventing a logging API that people who
have years of experience in that field have already come up with?
Given the above points then the two are roughly equal functionality
wise, size wise, and class number wise and the argument about coupling
3rd party dependencies in this case is moot.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:28 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
over-engineering + reinvent-the-wheel when it is a trivial exercise <
no coupling to 3rd party dependencies + 100% backward and forward
compatibility
I know you don't feel the same way, but I feel strongly about this
architectural principal.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
JSecurity Code -> Logging Abstraction -> Logging Abstraction ->
Logging
Framework
=
over-engineering + reinvent-the-wheel
On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
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
