On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My reduced solution works, it enables a cleaner, more flexible >> deployment scenario than using SLF4J natively, and there are no CL >> issues. There is nothing to learn. Its just an elegant solution. >> Why some feel it is not worth trying before 1.0 status just baffles >> me. > > There is lot to learn, every user of JSecurity will need to understand > how its logging works, or they will be very confused when it falls > back to a logger they had no idea was in use. Especially when the > project declares a dependency on a logging facade.
Yep, it would be JavaDoc'd, in the quickstart, and in the user documentation. Its as simple as this: "JSecurity expects the SLF4J logging jars to be in the classpath as the preferred logging mechanism. If they are not, it will attempt to fall back using the JDK Loggers, or on 1.3, disable logging entirely. Please ensure you have slf4j-api.jar and one of its binding implementations in your classpath if you want to enable configurable logging."
