I've been thinking to propose this change to slf4j since... since... since I'vediscovere slf4j :P
I don't have any problem to do it :) 2013/12/3 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> > 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 > :) >
