Since the slf4j license [1] is also compatible with Apache license, here's my +1.
[1] - http://www.slf4j.org/license.html On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Marlon Pierce <[email protected]>wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm also +1 for slf4j. > > > Marlon > > > On 9/3/11 1:46 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake wrote: > > Hi Patnachai, > > > > I am +1 for slf4j because I consider is as a improved version of > > using log4j with commons-logging wrapper. > > > > > > There are some Xsul logging implemented in Xbaya we need to remove > > them too ! > > > > Lahiru > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM, [email protected] > > <[email protected] > >> wrote: > > > >> Hello devs, > >> > >> After browsing through dependencies in the project for a while, I > >> think we should unify our logging library in the project. Right > >> now, we have used Apache-common-logging, Log4j, > > > > and slf4j in both > >> build files (pom.xml) and source codes. > >> > >> Personally, I would go with SLF4J since it is actively maintained > >> and it also compatible with others (just drop a jar file to a > >> classpath). > >> > >> -- Best Regards, Patanachai Tangchaisin > >> > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOYmhuAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5WigH/jXXRQTczdoflVzKQIMhyHL9 > ZiJaGJ0ijFCJdCisAol/eTLE8hwgFgmTxdKlG5ca1QX8skIOWKSHK7Ik76iM4/9D > uA5yQmEZpc8t6opSMdiC2SlkUXa6NAcJWKHX7SLDll8cY9pHiXX26D1QbC7MFFtm > I4HBeVqMGHWKM+sSuID3MVmHJ1IPjwRw0JoI6HBwYX3EBsWBeh+DkjZdRPklVtAT > kp1fAGJ6RcwlQeb9bS3hclcHayn7UnUOljvZ2iNUOLv4Wk7foFfDzTdxbo9nOIyG > GfMsmzBzeEMlOL2R9aXzxCshY5szvYPzxg5ABOy+h/fav6QD3YhWCjSwv23WrRQ= > =QRLd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Regards, Heshan Suriyaarachchi http://heshans.blogspot.com/
