Which logback features? Are they a part of SLF4j's API? Scott Deboy COMOTIV SYSTEMS 111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950 Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496 Cell: 503.997.1367 Fax: 503.222.0185 [email protected] www.comotivsystems.com -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Fri 12/12/2008 6:32 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly I suppose that is fair. But I will tell you that I am biased. I use SLF4J. Right now I can't use log4j because it is missing features that Logback has. The primary reason I asked to be involved in Log4j 2.0 was so that I could address that. Obviously I haven't had the time to get started but I still intend to. Maybe that will be what I do over the Christmas holiday. So whether SLF4J is added to 1.2 doesn't really matter to me. Ralph On Dec 12, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Scott Deboy wrote: > 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 > [email protected] > www.comotivsystems.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[email protected]] > 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: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
<<winmail.dat>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
