On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> I think Gary's point was that naming everything as log4j-* is more > consistent. But yes, SLF4J's scheme is more about being descriptive. SLF4J > includes slf4j-log4j12.jar (BTW - I really like the picture at > http://www.slf4j.org/legacy.html - we need to create something like it). > I'm afraid if we include slf4j-log4j2 they might think it is from SLF4J > instead of Log4j. That is also why I don't really like slf4j-impl. > > +1 agree. Starting with log4j-* is really important, imo, to easily see where all the log4j jars reside in a packaged app (war, ear, etc.). Brand names go in the front :-) > One major difference we have with SLF4J is that it provides bindings from > logging frameworks into SLF4J and also provides bindings from SLF4J to > other logging frameworks. We only provide adapters from other logging APIs > to Log4j. I have not had any intention of competing with SLF4J for being a > universal logging API. > > Ralph > > >
