On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:45 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 22:14 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: > > Am 2017-12-01 um 10:09 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > > > Folks > > > > > > It is going to be unpleasant but we need to revisit a highly > > > contentious issue of the choice of a logging APIs for HttpClient > > > 5.0. > > > > > > I personally like Log4J2 and generally am a satisfied user of the > > > toolkit. However, Log4J2 logging facade APIs did accumulate a lot > > > of > > > stuff that in my opinion should not have been there in the first > > > place. > > > This bothers me. > > > > > > A more immediate problem with Log4J2, though, is that its logging > > > APIs > > > do not play nicely with Android. Whether or not this is Log4J2 > > > fault is > > > not for me to say but presently HttpClient 5.0 is incompatible > > > with > > > Android due to its dependency on Log4J2 logging APIs. It is also > > > unclear whether this incompatibility could be resolved and > > > when. See LO > > > G4J2-2133 [1] for details. > > > > > > At this point while HttpClient 5.0 is still ALPHA we could switch > > > to > > > SLF4J and personally think we should. Log4J2 would still be the > > > preferred and the default toolkit for HttpClient 5.0 though the > > > logging > > > interface would be SLF4J, not Log4J2 logging APIs. > > > > > > Please share your thoughts. > > > > Have checked the JIRA issue on this and it seems to gain some > > traction. > > Moreover on core-libs-dev@openjdk has some discussion about it > > that > > Google might/will fix this for d8? > > > > For the sake of backwards-compat and less headache, I'd switch to > > SLF4J. > > One can still use Log4J2 backend. > > > > As for SLF4J 1.8. I don't see HC 5.0 to switch to it to maintain > > binary > > compat. > > > > Michael > > > > Folks > > I hate doing it but we need to make a decision and live with it until > 6.0 ALPHA. > > We cannot make everyone happy but using Log4j2 logging backend via > SLF4J facade appears to be the lesser evil and causes the least > unhappiness among users and committers as well. > > @Gary, > Can you live with that? > > @all > Do we need more discussion? Do we need a formal vote on the matter? > > Cheers > > Oleg
Given that no one responded I am going to go ahead and put slf4j as a facade to log4j2. I also realized that we could migrate back to log4j2 logging APIs in a minor release (5.1) without breaking binary compatibility. Let's revisit this whole thing once it is time to upgrade from Java 1.7 to Java 1.8 or Java 9. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
