Yes, that's because logging is not a critical system function. Security is.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
