Hi Niklas! Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks very much.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. I agree with you, but the sad reality is that SLF4J is not embedded into the JRE, so therefore I must view it as a proprietary 3rd party library. And as to its ubiquity, I haven't yet needed to use SLF4J in any of my most recent projects (and I have a lot of them), nor do any of the open source projects I use currently require SLF4J (Spring, caching frameworks, etc). Now of course, the next version of Hibernate will require it, but not too many others - the huge majority of frameworks still require Commons Logging. I do feel that this will change over the next year though, since SLF4J adoption is occurring quite rapidly - which is why SLF4J is my preferred logging API. JCL will be replaced soon enough across the board. > >> 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. I agree with this too - my point was only that it is so easy that anyone with an IDE can search-and-replace the relevant code in about 5 minutes - not just me. So even if I wasn't maintaining it, it would still be a trivial exercise. Thanks for chiming in! - Les
