First of all, sorry to jump in at this point of the discussion. 2011/7/28 Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
> Hi all guys, > I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or > somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding > [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j... > Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? > :) > I think that we should start from the fact that many application developers use Log4j 1.2 for their purposes, simply because it is *enough* configurable and *enough* useful. Sincerely I think that we don't need anything more than what Log4j 1.2 already provides. And I don't think that j.u.logging is useful enough, the configuration is simply not there. Stated this, obviously it is out of the question to adopt Log4j, simply because Commons is made of libraries, and other libraries use other logging frameworks. So we need a wrapper. I would choose SLF4J for a simple consideration: there is a Commons Logging substitute in SLF4J (jcl-over-slf4j) but not a SLF4J substitute in Commons Logging. >From a Maven perspective, If Commons Logging is chosen, when a common library is included, SLF4J users must exclude commons-logging dependency to add jcl-over-slf4j, for all libraries. However in my experience SLF4J has a big drawback: when used in a shared classloader (JBoss Portal anyone?) it is needed to have the same stinky old version of SLF4J in all applications during compile time, and the library should be excluded from the package. Antonio P.S. The world was better when there was only Log4j :-D
