On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:30 PM, Peter Ledbrook wrote:
I don't see how your logic and a regular SLF4J implementation could
coexist. In a simple environment, class path order would decide on
which implementation would be picked. Also, I don't think your logic
makes any sense when picking SLF4J as the logging API. For the
non-sophisticated users that you are worried about, pick one of the
SLF4J implementations and document that it's th one they get. For all
other needs, the regular SLF4J JAR is the one to use. I would think
pretty much every one will end up with the slim JAR anyways, but time
will tell.
This is my understanding of the proposal too. If the user doesn't want
to worry about logging, they get the embedded slf4j-api + simple
logger, or maybe JDK logger for Java 1.4+. If they want pluggable
logging, then they need the JSecurity distribution without the
embedded slf4j-api.
+1
Regards,
Alan
