Again, I'm talking about a featherweight wrapper - not a full
>> abstraction layer. All I wanted to support out of the box was 3
>> implementations: A console logger on < JDK 1.3. A JDK 1.4 logger if
>> they don't include any other dependency, and a SLF4J one to handle all
>> other cases. I just love the fact that we wouldn't have forced
>> dependencies. 1 jar. That's just awesome :)
>
> Featherweight is a vague adjective. As I've mentioned before, I'm not sure
> that the community deserves a dummied down API. If one delivers the same
> functionality then one ends up with roughly the same API.
That's very true. But I think that's the issue - JSecurity doesn't
use any of the more robust functionality that SLF4J might provide. We
always do this:
if ( isBlahEnabled() ) {
log.blah(...);
}
We never use anything else. So the wrapper API I came up with only
supports that. Now if we were going to use features like <a
href="http://www.slf4j.org/manual.html#mdc";>Mapped Diagnostic
Contexts</a>, then sure, a 1-to-1 overlap would be the case and of
lesser value.
But yes, it is 'dummied down' as you say to only support what we need.
Again, its reducing coupling that is my favorite aspect, not so much
the overlap.
