+1 to what JB said. Will just have to be documented well as if we provide no binding there will be no logging out of the box unless the user adds a binding.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Aviem, > > Good point. > > I think, in our dependencies set, we should just depend to slf4j-api and > let the > user provides the binding he wants (slf4j-log4j12, slf4j-simple, whatever). > > We define a binding only with test scope in our modules. > > Regards > JB > > On 03/22/2017 04:58 AM, Aviem Zur wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There have been a few reports lately (On JIRA [1] and on Slack) from > users > > regarding inconsistent loggers used across Beam's modules. > > > > While we use SLF4J, different modules use a different logger behind it > > (JUL, log4j, etc) > > So when people add a log4j.properties file to their classpath for > instance, > > they expect this to affect all of their dependencies on Beam modules, but > > it doesn’t and they miss out on some logs they thought they would see. > > > > I think we should strive for consistency in which logger is used behind > > SLF4J, and try to enforce this in our modules. > > I for one think it should be slf4j-log4j. However, if performance of > > logging is critical we might want to consider logback. > > > > Note: SLF4J will still be the facade for logging across the project. The > > only change would be the logger SLF4J delegates to. > > > > Once we have something like this it would also be useful to add > > documentation on logging in Beam to the website. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1757 > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
