[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-376?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12642147#action_12642147
]
Harry Metske commented on JSPWIKI-376:
--------------------------------------
Remember that slf4j is just an abstraction layer (like commons-logging), so we
still would have to choose a logging implementation, in my opinion this could
be log4j or the standard JDK logging.
My first impression is that log4j is still more flexible and feature rich than
the standard JDK logging (but we an extra jar).
We can make JSPWiki itself use slf4j, but what to do with the other packages
we depend on, and that do not (yet) use slf4j ?
Might be a good idea to first summarize who these are, and if there are plans
to migrate those to slf4j :
- jabsorb - slf4j (oke)
- JSPWiki - log4j (oke, we migrate it to slf4j ourselves)
- OSCache - commons-logging ?
- xmlrpc ?
- ...........a lot more..........
This might be a long run :-(
> Move from log4j to slf4j
> ------------------------
>
> Key: JSPWIKI-376
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-376
> Project: JSPWiki
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core & storage
> Reporter: Janne Jalkanen
> Assignee: Harry Metske
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> SLF4J allows far more flexible logging than log4j, and it would allow us to
> get rid of these dumb log4j compatibility problems that sometimes occur. It
> also plays better with other applications, gives the user more power to
> choose how to log his stuff, and is also pretty cool otherwise. The change
> would be relatively trivial, and would probably be largely invisible to the
> users (since we could continue shipping with necessary log4j jars).
> http://www.slf4j.org
> The license is MIT/X11, so that's fine.
> Opinions?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
