Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Paul Smith
If logger implements org.slf4j.Logger, then one can write String name = "Scott"; logger.debug("Hello Scott"); logger.debug("Hello {}", name); Both log statements will print as "Hello Scott". However, the latter log statement will contain 'name' as a parameter. The SLF4J implementation can choos

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Paul Smith
On 09/12/2008, at 2:27 AM, saimen54 wrote: Jacob Kjome wrote: http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/component/index.html http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/extras/index.html http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/index.html http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companio

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Ceki Gulcu
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: I agree that the log4j is currently in a very uninteresting place developmentwise, but so be it. As long as there hasn't been a consensus on where to go from here - and WHY - it is hard to initiate a coordinated development effort. There does not need to be a

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread saimen54
Jacob Kjome wrote: > > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/component/index.html > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/extras/index.html > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/index.html > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/zeroconf/index.html > And is ther

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Jacob Kjome
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:44 +0100 Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Other projects have created extra packages containing such auxillary classes to avoid breaking things in the core package. The reason must be another :) ...and we have this.  See... http://logging.apache.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Ceki Gulcu skrev den 08-12-2008 12:41: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: I believe that Curt Arnold may be somewhat right in that this is a matter of Apache endorsement. This is purely guesswork. I still think that log4j should have a "Best practices" list, where the "use slf4j framework" sho

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Ceki Gulcu
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: I believe that Curt Arnold may be somewhat right in that this is a matter of Apache endorsement. This is purely guesswork. I still think that log4j should have a "Best practices" list, where the "use slf4j framework" should be on the list for backend independen

Re: [PROPOSAL] Implementing the SLF4J API directly

2008-12-08 Thread Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Jacob Kjome skrev den 07-12-2008 06:04: On 12/6/2008 6:27 AM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: I believe that the positive in decoupling the logging implementation from the application will vastly overshadow any inconvinience in this regard. Most if not all of the work has been done in the sl