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

Reply via email to