On 22/04/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > > > > Hi Ralph, > > > > Ralph Goers wrote at Mittwoch, 22. April 2009 05:19: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Does it really matter that you understand what they are trying to do? > > > What should matter is what they are trying to do doesn't work properly > > > and they couldn't find a work around. > > > > > > > Did anyone of them ask here and try to explain the situation? All I ever > > here is "it's a known issue that CL does not work, so let's switch". What > a > > great reasoning. > > > > If they got interrogated like what you've been doing in this thread I could > understand why they didn't bother. I suspect though that they understand > that the fundamental design of how commons logging works is the problem. > > > > > > > > > > I'm still at a loss as to how this conversation has devolved to this. > > > This post was meant as an example as to why yet another project is > > > switching away from Commons Logging. > > > > > > > Yes, and they are switching probably for the wrong reasons. If they really > > expect the classloading issues going away with SLF4J, I wonder, if they > > really tested webapps that make usage of SLF4J themselves under the same > > conditions. > > > > Who are you to tell them that they are switching for the wrong reasons? You > read their Jira issue and decided what they want to do is wrong so there > must not be a problem with Commons Logging. They have since updated the > issue to clearly answer your question. You still won't like it because > Commons Logging doesn't work and SLF4J does.
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that SLF4J also relies on the ClassLoader to find the implementation. It's not clear whether Pluto would work if the properties file were used to define the CL implementation. It may be that CL cannot work with Pluto, but I'm not sure that has been proved. I'm not saying Pluto is wrong to use SLF4J, but the cited reasons may not be true. > > > > > > > > > > I'll ask again. What is next for Commons Logging? Is there any point > > > in enhancing it to emulate SLF4J? Should it just stay more or less as > > > it is while it slowly loses its customer base? > > > > > > > This is more a consequence of a lot of FUD that is currently around. Yes, > > there have been problems, but that's why version 1.1.1 is around. See that > > guy raising the last issue in JIRA for a WebLogic 10.x instance, he's > still > > using 1.0.4. > > > > Therefore why is it necessary to use SLF4J in CC, when all other commons > > components use CL? > > > > I've itemized the reasons before. Why do I need to repeat them? And you > are still avoiding the question. > > What is next for Commons Logging? Is there any point in enhancing it to > emulate SLF4J? Should it just stay more or less as it is while it slowly > loses its customer base? > > You can continue to bury your head in the sand, but projects are moving > away from Commons Logging. Google says so. > > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
