Hi,
I know SLF4J is a great logging framework for us, but I encounter with
many questions with configuring SLF4J to work with one's favorite
logging frameworks very often, via ML, IRC or personal e-mail.
IIRC, we already talked about providing a way to choose the logging
framework, but I thought
Hi Trustin,
I don't like this idea.
It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
Maybe a well-written FAQ entry
Well... since the documentation for SLF4J is very clear and easy to
understand, I don't really see a reason to abandon it. Personally I
think the (original) choice for this logging facade was perfect
(especially since you can change the actual logger on the spot, without
any code changes).
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Trustin,
I don't like this idea.
It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
our mechanism for
Hi Trustin,
How about inquiring with Ceki to see if these concerns can be
addressed then see what other options exist? The idea of yet another
logging implementation is a bit nausiating: there are so many already
in existance. Adding yet another one to the mix especially to be
maintained by the
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Trustin,
I don't like this idea.
It basically means that we
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
I would much
I added a simple logging tutorial to
http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html
I hope this will help and at least we will have something to point people
towards.
On 9/27/07, Mike Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are
