On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep, there is a comment in the code, stating that is the expected condition: > > //SLF4J not available or not initialized properly, try remaining possibilities > > That it still continues to work, even when they've misconfigured their > end, means it is resilient to failure as a good security framework > should be. > > SLF4J maintains the same philosophy - it will _never_ throw an > exception if you've done something wrong or something internally goes > wrong. Only the classloader will complain if you've forgot a binding.
Yes, and I think there is a reason for it doing just that. Note that it doesn't fall back to logging somewhere completely different. /niklas
