On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of curiosity though, how come you don't seem to mind the > tight-coupling to the SLF4J API as much as I do? In general, > tight-coupling of _any_ 3rd party API really really irritates me.
As a fan of the pure SLF4J approach I see SLF4J as the very extension to the JRE, something that's always around. One would have hoped that JUL would have been just that, but since it's not, SLF4J has had to play that roll. I'm thinking that it will be around in the large majority of cases where JSecurity is used anyways and therefore see a custom logging API as more burden than using SLF4J directly. > 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. This is not a compelling argument for me. The code on this project is shared among all its commiters/contributors and any code therefore must be understood and possibly maintained by any of those. Besides, the project might be around for longer than any particular commiter (just see MINA for a prime example). To me, that's part of why I value the "Community over code" tagline. /niklas
