Yet again, I'm NOT writing a proper abstraction layer to handle any underlying implementation.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think we should try it. I think we should drop it. I can't figure > out why we are still arguing about this. Like Alan just said - what problem > are we trying to solve? For the like 12th time, this is the problem I'm trying to solve: 1. Proper low coupling/high cohesion with all aspects of our API, logging included. 2. Use SLF4J as the primary logging mechanism if it is in the classpath. 3. Graceful Degredation if SLF4J is not in the classpath. Note that my solution for checking if it is in the classpath will NOT result in the class loader issues that Commons Logging has. This is possible due to #1. 4. No _forced_ dependencies. This is possible due to #1. > > There's no reason to add additional code and complexity if there aren't > problems to be solved. (that can't better be solved by just using SLF4J - an > established solution) There's nothing wrong with it if the code is so trivial that a monkey could understand it. I'm not asking anyone to do ANY effort. I'm not asking anyone to maintain it. I've even said that if we actually have a problem with it - that is, something _actually_ comes up _in practice_ that indicates it is not working as expected, that I'll do the 5 minute code change it takes to force the SLF4J dependency. You have nothing to lose. You have the above 4 points to gain. That no one here has to lift a finger and won't affect their coding at all and _still_ I'm getting pushback is driving me nuts. Just try it for Pete's sake. Then we can move on and no one here will ever have to worry about this again.
