Heiko Seeberger <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > On 5 February 2010 22:11, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 2) is the cleanest solution since the choice of logging backend is made >> explicit. But this requires people to change their poms in order to get >> any logging. >> > > Let's go for 2) because in real-world projects people will have to adjust > the POM anyway. E.g. for persistence modules or for 3rd party libs.
After some thoughts, I agree. One issue remains: Configuration of the actual logging backend (ie log4j or logback) to load e.g. prod, test & dev configs. We can either 1) Try to be smart and figure out which backend is available and configure it automatically. This (I learned :-) doesn't sit too well with OSGi and is not really the Lift way. 2) Require backend specific configuration in Boot. This is the Lift way, but it's a breaking change Opinions? /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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
