> So maybe, in the end, supporting just JUL might be ok, particularly for SLF4J > there is a wrapper which redirects JUL to SLF4J. So in my use cases, I can > just deploy the JUL-to-SLF4J wrapper, set the property, and be done. > > I wonder, though, whether we should not keep the reflection feature for > backwards compatibility.
In that case though, I would argue we don't need to add support for JUL because the reflection is already working with JUL loggers directly i.e., all one has to do is to put in a JUL logger into the framework properties and it will be used. If we keep the reflection anyways we might as well go with the reflection only me thinks... regards, Karl > Regards > Felix > -- Karl Pauls [email protected]
