On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
This is very similar to what Peter recommended earlier. This just
might work, and I very much appreciate this from both you and Peter.
Actually thinking for alternatives rather than just shooting it down
because it might not fit one's mental model is what I appreciate most.
"I don't want to try it", without alternatives or thinking through
other options is what I found very frustrating and fueled much of my
persistence.
/me giggles..
I think that this is the third time that I proposed this solution.
I'll have to think about this, but it sounds as if it might be the
best middle ground.
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. I
have been on huge code projects in the past that quickly made me a
staunch believer of this philosophy...
Generally that's true but for logging there's not a lot to it. Think
of SLF4J as an API, much like the servlet API. I don't think of my
self as being tied to SLF4J as me coding against a simple logging API.
Regards,
Alan
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's keep in mind what we are building. This is not something
to help
my
dad's office assistant make a web site to post pictures of his
kids.
It's a
security framework. People arrive at this this task with girded
loins.
The
LAST thing you want is automagical things going on behind the
scenes,
especially when it comes to security.
This is where I believe you're mistaken. I know our current end-
user
community better than anyone on this list. There has been an
overwhelming feedback from users - many of whom are brand new to
Java,
let alone web applications, that rave about the simplicity of our
framework and how easy it is to set up. The big mantra of this
project is "we make life easy for you whenever possible, but make it
flexible when you need it". This is NOT a low-level framework for
those well-versed in Java. It is a framework for pretty much any
skill level.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. This is compelling to me.
Why not have
jsecurity-core - SLF4J API
jsecurity - jsecurity-core plus SLF4J implementation that
implements your
algorithm
Everyone gets what they want. Core developers code against a
known, robust,
logging API. Novice users get their dependency free and simple jar.
Regards,
Alan
