Sure it is, if we lock them into java util logging. If people want to
use slf4j, then they can use jsecurity-core with an slf4j-whatever jar.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
As discussed on the "SLF4J StaticLoggerBinder" thread, it appears not
to be possible.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
The idea was that you make an SLF4J implementation.
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
JSecurityLogFactory does the graceful degredation that I desire.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
I'm confused. Why do we still have JSecurityLogFactory if we're
going
to
use the SLF4J API?
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
That is, the following:
//SL4J native API
Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass());
is functionally identical to this:
//JSecurity wrapper API:
Log log = JSecurityLogFactory.getLog(getClass());
_if_ SLF4J is anywhere the classpath. If not, there is graceful
degredation. This solution does not use reflection.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Les Hazlewood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ok, I committed a solution that will definitely work with NO
class
loader issues.
It uses static linking just like SLF4J. Now there should be no
more
arguments against this solution due to potential CL issues - they
can't occur now.
Please do an SVN update and look at JSecurityLogFactory again.
I've
tested this and works well.
