For anyone curious about the history, and just to defend against the ridiculous accusation of "not invented here syndrome", we did depend on commons-logging over 5 years ago...
http://ibatisdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ibatisdb/ibatis-dbl-2/src/com/ibatis/common/jdbc/logging/ResultSetLogProxy.java?revision=1.1&view=markup However, we had a lot of people with differing opinions: * Log4J users were annoyed that they had to configure commons logging * Commons logging users wouldn't be happy with just log4j * JDK 1.4 released around that time with its own logging solution * Various other frameworks chose either log4j or commons-logging, and if you chose to use both iBATIS and another framework, it was very annoying if they used two different logging frameworks. It was even more annoying if they used two different aggregates (e.g. say iBATIS used SLF4J and Stripes used Commons Logging... that would be pretty annoying). So the iBATIS solution was to do its best to detect what you were using, and use that, starting from the most abstract (commons logging) and working its way down to the lowest common denominator (JDK 1.4), with intelligent defaults for the most popular (log4j). Comments and feedback are welcome (similar to Cyril's original post, which started a healthy, interesting discussion). Cyril, I'm sorry your thread was hijacked. Clinton On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Clinton Begin <clinton.be...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> that was already brilliantly implemented and documented, and amply > tested by a large number of user. > > The iBATIS logging implementation predates SLF4J by about 3 years, and has > been tested by thousands of users. > > >> You think it's not a hack, I do think it is one, > > You are rude, disrespectful and do not know what you're talking about. > iBATIS isn't a logging framework, it USES and SUPPORTS various logging > frameworks to make it as easy as possible for others to use it without > dependencies. You might like SLF4J, but THOUSANDS of others might prefer > log4j. > > Can we support SLF4J the same way? Yes. Can we make the logging framework > pluggable and configurable? Yes. > > Am I going to do it? No. You are welcome to. > > >> Chance are that SLF4J ***or*** commons-logging are already mandated by > the client application itself > > Yes "or"... OR... "or"!!!! See, you don't get it. You really don't > understand the purpose of this implementation and you dare to criticize it > in such a rude fashion. > > >> Not using it is counter productive (even insulting for whom have created > it). > > iBATIS beat them to it. They should use ours. Am I insulted they didn't? > No. I've never even heard of them. > > >> sincerely, I hate to argument that way, > > Then stop. You're wasting our time and making a fool of yourself. > > Clinton > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Zart Colwin <za...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > >> 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! <= >> >> I do respect efforts of others, that's why I wouldn't want to re-implement >> something that was already brilliantly implemented and documented, and amply >> tested by a large number of user. I wouldn't have the presumption to think >> that I could do better than Ceki Gülcü that have 10+ years of experience in >> that particular field. >> You think it's not a hack, I do think it is one, by examining the code for >> a few minutes I have found two "conceptual" bugs in it: >> - Q: How to express which Logging technology to bind to in case multiple >> are available from the classpath (a classical situation nowadays)? A: >> Basically you can't, the lookup order is hard coded - first >> commons-logging, then log4j, then jdk4, etc... >> - Q: How to setup the classpath in order to use the >> "org.apache.ibatis.logging.nologging.NoLoggingImpl" ? A: In fact you can't, >> since beginning with JDK1.4 java.util.logging.Logger will alway be present >> thus discovered by the lookup, thus iBatis will alway at least log through >> java.util.logging.Logger unless it runs on JDK1.3. >> Ho, and changing the client application code to call one of the >> LogFactory.useXxxLogging explicitly is not an option at deployment time. >> >> 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. >> >> Chance are that SLF4J or commons-logging are already mandated by the >> client application itself - I can hardly think of a modern application that >> doesn't log its own events. The JAR soup is "setup once and forget" kind of >> problem just setup your ant script or maven pom and forget about it. Not big >> enough to warrant the rewrite of an existing library. >> >> We don't want to create version dependency conflicts with other open >> source projects. >> >> What version dependency conflicts? SLF4J is an interface, backward >> compatibility is taking very seriously by the SL4FJ team and is guarantied >> for simple logging usage. >> >> The problem with logging was created by Sun years ago, and now we have to >> deal with it. >> >> Because Sun snub the excellent Log4J. Does Sun have come with something >> better than Log4J ? Hardly so. SLF4J was created especially to deal with the >> issue created by stupid Sun; Not using it is counter productive (even >> insulting for whom have created it). >> >> 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/ >> >> I'd rather prefer to fix iBatis so that it uses SLF4J directly and then >> let SLF4J community implements new binding if/when one need. >> >> >> sincerely, I hate to argument that way, but I sincerely think that >> collaboration between open source projects is better than isolation and I >> still can't see a good reason why SLF4J couldn't be used to begin with. >> >> sincerely, >> ZC. >> >> >> >> >> Clinton Begin wrote: >> >> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >
