I had two points I was trying to make: 1. Whether or not the slf4j formatter is faster by x nanoseconds isn't really the issue here. Most of the pros and cons around implementing direct support for slf4j in log4j aren't technical and we should at least think through what they are and consider the tradeoffs.
2. We have had (nearly) zero input from users requesting direct support for slf4j. Scott Deboy Principal Engineer COMOTIV SYSTEMS 111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950 Portland, OR 97201 Office: 503.224.7496 Direct Line: 503.821.6482 Cell: 503.997.1367 Fax: 503.222.0185 sde...@comotivsystems.com www.comotivsystems.com -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:30 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Scott Deboy wrote: > Why don't we post the pros and cons of implementing slf4j on our wiki. > > We should also solicit user feedback - I don't recall much/any log4j- > user conversations regarding slf4j. > > Scott Deboy > I'm not sure what the point in debating this more is. Let Ceki implement what he wants to do in a sandbox or branch. It can then be reviewed to see if it is appropriate for 1.2.x or needs to go to 2.0. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
