Ok. Yes that's sure it has to be discussed. That's why I reopened the subject. About the implementation : * as a user I have really no preference, I just want the feature * as a developer I played with both and for me these are just loggers . We may organize a fight between Ceki and Ralph but it won't help I think. I agree that log4j2 is in beta which is annoying (? Or not. We are talking about a logging lib that is doing some println - but with colors ) * as PMC and ASF member I suppose I should say that our projects are the best and we should privilege our own stuffs for the safety of our ecosystem.
Cheers. --------- Arnaud Le 1 déc. 2012 à 09:26, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Arnaud Héritier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> >> Couldn't we have a look at olamy's log4j2 branch to see if we could >> sanitize / merge it to propose at least one change for the end user >> and demonstrate the interest of the change about logs : a colorized >> console. > > Not without discussion about the implementation. To me the obvious choice is > Logback and using Log4J2 makes no sense. Olivier disagrees so there will be a > discussion. I've been working on the release but I plan to make a branch > using Logback so we have a basis for discussion. > >> >> I remember you did that in mvnsh/teslashell a long time ago (as an >> extension ?) and perhaps it could be easy to add properly this feature >> in 3.1.0 (otherwise it won't be before a 3.2.0). >> >> Myself I'm using a 3.1.0 fork with this patch and I' m really >> satisfied (it's so good to quickly see highlighted warning and errors >> ). I merged it back in the last 3.1.0 tag you did without issue >> >> Wdyt? > > Just as easy with Logback, the only difference being Logback is a mature > solution. So I'm sure there's going to be a discussion. > >> >> --------- >> Arnaud >> >> Le 1 déc. 2012 à 00:20, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> I'm done with the issues that cropped up so I'm ready to re-spin 3.1.0. >>> >>> Anyone want to add anything or discuss anything before I spin this? I'm not >>> in any rush so if folks want to talk about logging we can. But given the >>> fact once SLF4J initializes it can't change the implementation plugins >>> integrating with Maven need to use the implementation we choose. This is >>> how everything else in the world that integrates SLF4J has to operate so I >>> don't really see us being any different. >>> >>> I'll wait until tomorrow to re-spin. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
