Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
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
+1.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
