On 4/29/2016 13:03, Phillip Lord wrote:
Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch> writes:
Robert, I agree with you. The distinction of library vs. application
is essential to the problem at hand.
I think that things have got a little side-tracked by this discussion
really. The problem at hand is whether a library should *by default*
print to standard out/err even in the absence of an error condition.
I think it should not.
I do acknowledge the bootstrap difficulty this causes for SLF4J, but
there are solutions. The issue of library vs. application only comes
into question when we discuss the problem with your solution (i.e bind
to nop).
OK, admittedly, I am assuming that there is a distinction between
library vs. application, a distinction although natural to me might not
always be natural to others.
FYI, I added the following paragraph to
http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder
If you are packaging an application and you do not care about logging,
then placing slf4j-nop.jar on the class path of your application will
get rid of this warning message. Note that embedded components such as
libraries or frameworks should not declare a dependency on any SLF4J
binding but only depend on slf4j-api. When a library declares a
compile-time dependency on a SLF4J binding, it imposes that binding on
the end-user, thus negating SLF4J's purpose.
In any case, thank you for initiating and valiantly pursuing this
discussion. Such design questions are quite fundamental.
--
Ceki
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
slf4j-user@qos.ch
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
