On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Last logging question, I promise! > > I'm about to implement MDC in Lift's logging, but it seems more and more > layers are introduced. > > So before adding another adapter on top of e.g. Slf4j which is already > an adapter on top of e.g. logback I thought I would see if there are any > objections to making Lift always log through Slf4j? > > Yes. I object. There is a way to log through slf4j right now. It's a one-line addition to boot.scala. I have a very strong preference for not changing any APIs or defaults. If you want to add or enhance the mechanics, cool. > There wouldn't be any API changes and Log4j could still be the default > backend, with the config settings as we currently have, only there > wouldn't be any Log4JLogger. > > On the positive side, Lift's logging is simpler: only interface to Slf4j > (we would keep the log4j config stuff) > > Downside is two more jars if you're using log4j: slf4j-api & > slf4j-log4j12 > > Thoughts? > > /Jeppe > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Surf the harmonics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
