Ceki Gulcu skrev den 04-12-2008 21:33:
Curt has plainly expressed his feelings. What do others think?
I think that the slf4j approach is the right way to select the logging
framework, and it is the only implementation of this approach I am aware
of. My personal "Best Practice" list has "use slf4j" high on the list.
As slf4j is an open source project it is not a problem for users to use
it and choose the backend they like, but an issue in whether log4j
should acknowledge slf4j at all allowing users to avoid reinventing the
wheel over and over again, when they find that they need to combine
libraries which use java.util.logging and log4j with their own source.
I strongly believe that either should the log4j project endorse the
practice of using slf4j or provide its own implementation of
"java.util.logging-over-log4j" bridging to give the users the best
headstart in the world of large applications with lots of independent
libraries. If this proprosal is rejected for any reason, the rejecters
should at least initiate an alternative and reasonable solution to the
problem of multiple logging frameworks in the same application, as this
is a real issue encountered by real programmers.
Personally I think that the least complex solution would be either to
accept a donation of the log4j->slf4j bridge in the standard log4j
distribution or go the whole way with Cekis suggestion.
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
