It's not a hack, or at least no more than SLF4J was the first day they decided that they wanted something better than commons logging etc.
=> Have some respect for the opinions and efforts of others! <= One of our goals has always been to have a single-jar deployment with no required dependencies -- a far cry from the JAR soup that many frameworks require. We don't want to create version dependency conflicts with other open source projects. The problem with logging was created by Sun years ago, and now we have to deal with it. iBATIS can use Commons Logging (and thus whatever it supports), Log4J or Java 1.4+ Logging directly. The dependency on Log4J was accidental (a bug). iBATIS *DOES NOT* depend on Log4J. The issue is fixed, as per this JIRA ticket: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IBATIS-626 If you want to implement SLF4J and contribute it, then do so and attach it to a JIRA ticket. Here's the interface: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ibatis/java/ibatis-3/trunk/ibatis-3-core/src/main/java/org/apache/ibatis/logging/ Cheers, Clinton On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Zart Colwin <za...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > I'm not convinced that slf4j is any better than the more widely used > commons-logging. > > Market share or product market penetration often do not directly reflect > the quality of one product compared to another one. It merely reflect the > power of one supplier to impose its products over the other ones; It is not > unexpected to see commons-logging still having more market penetration than > SLF4J since commons-logging was there earlier and since many ASF framework > largely use it. > > Taking your words literally, then no-one should bother to use iBatis since > the market ORM/persistance is largely dominated by Hibernate which have a > huge advance in market share over any other ORM/persistance frameworks. The > same goes true for things like Firefox against IE, Linux against Window, > even Windows7 against WindowsXP. > > If we want logging autonomy I'd rather go with what we did in the last > version and simply implement an internal commons-logging-ish solution. > > I'm completely shocked that you did this. What was so wrong with SLF4J or > commons-logging that you decided to hack your own logging abstraction > layer? Standing by your own statement, how can you be convinced that your > hack is any better than the more widely used SLF4J or commons-logging? > > > ZC > > > Brandon Goodin wrote: > > I'm not convinced that slf4j is any better than the more widely used > commons-logging. I know there are those who believe passionately on both > sides of this discussion and I don't mean to berate anyone. If we want > logging autonomy I'd rather go with what we did in the last version and > simply implement an internal commons-logging-ish solution. > > Brandon > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Cyril Pfaff <cyril.pf...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for this amazing product. >> >> >> >> Currently, iBATIS3 currently depends on log4j. Even if I like log4j, It >> would be interesting to look at SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/) as it may >> offers more flexibility (Basically due to the fact that it's an abstraction >> layer for various logging frameworks.) >> >> >> I did not find anything interesting in the mail archive regarding this >> subject: >> >> So ... what about slf4j ? Has this option already been discussed and >> rejected internally, or is it possible to use this logging facility instead >> of log4j in the next releases of iBATIS3 ?? >> >> Thanks again for your time. >> Regards. >> c. > > >
