Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?!
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>wrote: > Did you ever say something you really regretted? > > I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the > logging vote two years back[1]. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during > development, and incurring the performance hits. > > Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for > production. > > How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the > discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or > JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. > > Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the > theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality > of using it? > > slf4j and myfaces > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378 >
