There still may be some value in not introducing dependencies in the case of projects that implement Java EE specifications. Has anyone verified whether http://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html#LevelChangePropagator improves JUL performance as advertised?
Matt On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Ertio Lew <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, things change with time & may be it didn't mattered too much that time > but today SL4J is the need as it is widely adopted now. > > So +1 for SL4J ! > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do >> everything SL4J claimed to do. But as I stated earlier, the >> theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real >> use conditions. >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really >> > understand the need. >> > >> > Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that >> > reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense. SL4J was new, and >> > I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it. >> > >> > If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using >> > SL4J as the logging mechanism. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >>> >>
