Jörn Huxhorn wrote:
Are you serious?
I was.
I once heard a lecture on logging and the prof said that the main objective
of any logging framework must be to not break the application it is logging.
Absolutely.
From this point of view - that I absolutely share - the quality of the slf4j
Ralph Goers wrote:
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
[snip]
First, the class is called XLogger and it wraps an SLF4J logger
provided during construction time. It follows that XLogger methods are
no longer static.
The downside to this is that it might result in a lot of unnecessary
object construction
For info.
--
Ceki Gülcü
QOS.ch is looking to hire talented developers located in Switzerland
to work on cutting-edge software projects. If you think you are
qualified, then please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---BeginMessage---
Thanks. See comments below.
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello Ralph,
I just
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:24:02 +0200
Ceki Gulcu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jacob,
The slf4j-ext module requires JDK 1.5+. It's a brand new module with no
preexisting client base. In principle, we should be able to choose whatever
JDK
dependency we want.
The rest of SLF4J of course
Of course I meant yes it does make sense below. Sorry about the typo.
Jake
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:56:53 -0500
Jacob Kjome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:24:02 +0200
Ceki Gulcu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jacob,
The slf4j-ext module requires JDK 1.5+. It's a brand new
Jacob Kjome wrote:
Yes, it doesn't make sense and no, it doesn't need to support JDK 1.3.
Now, that does not makes sense. :-)
--
Ceki Gülcü
___
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
