David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Timothy Perrett > <timo...@getintheloop.eu>wrote: > >> Jeppe, >> >> Certainly 2 has to be the way to go. We can add stuff to the >> archetypes to ease this process for users. Moreover, we could add >> specific lift modules that carried the right dependencies and boot >> wire up to save the users writing boilerplate. i.e.: >> >> + lift-logging >> \ - lift-log4j >> \ - lift-logback >> >> The overhead of this would be negligible. Thoughts? >> > > If we're going to require #2, then I'd like to see some code breakage so > that people don't passively upgrade to 2.0-M3 then have their logging > magically break.
Not sure if you've reached the bottom of your inbox yet, but just in case you missed this: http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb/browse_thread/thread/97e6af9ff9ce7cb5/dc7e81ef1bed8be5?lnk=gst&q=309#dc7e81ef1bed8be5 The current code on the branch fails to boot (with the standard Slf4j error messages about missing log config) if no logging dependencies are included. As I wrote earlier, I can't see a way to break compilation on upgrade (unless we rename Log & LogBoot), since it's just code like this Log.info("hello world") But if somebody has suggestions, I'm all ears :-) /Jeppe -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
