On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So - all of this obfuscation, unnecessary abstraction, and additional > classes is so that: > > a) users who already use SLF4J are unaffected. (their experience is neither > IMPROVED or made worse) > b) users who use commons-logging will be confused why JSecurity isn't > logging correctly (since it will silently log to JDK 4 logger instead of > failing due to the lack of an slf4j.jar) > c) users who use JDK 1.3 will be really confused because they will get > absolutely NO OUTPUT if they don't have slf4j in the classpath. > d) users who use log4j directly will be confused per (b) or (c) based on > whether or not they are running JDK 1.3 or JDK 1.4 and above > > My opinion is that it's better to force the user to include SLF4J. That way > you avoid all of these confusing situations, you keep the code simple, you > use a logging framework OS developers are used to, and you avoid having one > logging abstraction built on top of another. > > And no - writing things out to stdout or stderr will not address my > concerns. > > Still +1 for just using SLF4J.
Agreed, I think this is still over-designing out ways out of a non-issue. /niklas
