On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope this was rethoric and you don't consider my emails trollish? > Thats not the intention. I am involved in Apache Commons and in Apache > Logging and > logging is some kind of a natural interest. If you feel that my mails > are trolling this list, let me know and I stop my blabber.
Troll was probably too strong a word. I did add a ":)" after it. >> If Cayenne were to log directly to the log4j api, that would force all >> of our end-users to use log4j, at least to the point to reconfigured >> log4j to log to something else. > > Now you force them to have commons-logging which almost nobody else uses. > > Furthermore you force users to exclude the commons-logging.jar manually > when they want to drive anything over slf4j. > > This would be the case with slf4j/log4j2 too - but it is more likely that > those > are used in real life projects rather than commons-logging. Esp slf4j of > course, > log4j2 has not spread so far. Excluding (or just not including it to start with) isn't that big a deal. I have real life projects. I use slf4j in most of them, with the commons logging bridge. I haven't had any problems doing it this way. Other than some toy personal projects, I don't think I work on any project that uses commons logging directly. > If you care about the bad performance of JCL: > then you need to exclude commons-logging. Again, we are not saying to use JCL. We are saying to use the JCL bridge of your choice. > If you would use slf4j, you can use jcl, log4j1, log4j2, logback even jul > (with some performance problems). > If you use log4j2 you can use the same. > > If you use JCL you can use log4j1, log4j2, slf4j and logback. But no Jul. Well, I have one MyFaces project that uses JCL and JUL. It's not pretty, but it's possible. The problems all lie on the JUL end of things, but unfortunately, MyFaces requires JUL at present, so everything is redirected to JUL (JCL -> SLF4J -> JUL, for example). > No, it misses lot of modern features in its API, like markers. > I wrote a blog post bout it if you are interested: > http://www.grobmeier.de/the-new-log4j-2-0-05122012.html I read that post a long time ago. I haven't had a need for anything beyond what JCL offers for logging. Markers could be a nice optional thing, but they're not a necessary thing. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to switching to SLF4J if someone else wanted to do the work. I'd prefer that you push your JSR forward and we were able to use that :)
