On Dec 1, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
>> How many times does someone really need a different implementation?
> 
> Sorry Jason, thats bollocks and you know it. 
> 

You looked at the the question and presumed an answer. You're assuming my is 
never. The answer is not very often, which begs the question of balance between 
creating a convoluted mechanism for accommodating the infrequency of that 
requirement versus having something simpler, less magic, smaller and working 
for most cases.

> 
> 
>> That is the pattern of most forms of 
>> integration because trying to account for many implementations interacting 
>> together have unknown side affects.
> 
> 
> You are wrong and right at the same time:
> Yes it's broken and has unknown side effects.

It's not broken, it has side effects as all things do.

> Thanks for finally acknowledging this. So why the hell do we force a single 
> established framework to any user at all?

As that's generally what most do in order to avoid having to support all 
combinations of things which is untenable.

> That's the reason why any sane container I know doesn't do that.
> 

I see most containers picking defaults.

> 
> Again: the easy solution would be a slf4j-MojoLogging bridge and all is fine. 
> 
> Plugins which like to use slf4j can simply use this bridge and all is fine. 
> Other plugins will not be hurt.
> 

Then implement it Mark and demonstrate, you keep talking about this but the 
whole while haven't demonstrated any of your theory.

Olivier and I may be disagreeing but we're both doing work and making 
implementations. 

As I said before I am not in a terrible rush so implement what you think works 
best and show us.

> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jason van Zyl <[email protected]>
>> To: Maven Developers List <[email protected]>
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 10:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re-spinning 3.1.0
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Why do we have to force our users to a specific logging implementation
>>> than we choose ?
>> 
>> My counter argument is why don't we? That is the pattern of most forms of 
>> integration because trying to account for many implementations interacting 
>> together have unknown side affects. Just because you can do something 
>> doesn't mean it's useful.
>> 
>>> We can propose variants and at least one as a workaround to maybe fix
>>> sonar issue.
>>> 
>>> So what I do in the branch called dynamic-logging-impl is a 
>> "dynamic"
>>> way of loading the implementation users prefers (default is log4j2).
>>> It's just a matter of modifying 
>> MAVEN_OPTS="-Dmaven.logger.impl=log4j2
>>> or slf4-simple or logback" (and thanks to our home made 
>> "osgi"
>>> classworld :-) )
>> 
>> The point again is just because you can do doesn't mean it's useful. How 
>> many times does someone really need a different implementation? Just because 
>> someone wants something doesn't mean you should give it to them. I believe 
>> just allowing anything isn't actually helpful to anyone.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Note: with this implementation is possible to use any other slf4j impl
>>> you want (IMHO good enhancement for ci servers which want to route
>>> logs somewhere)
>>> It's just a matter of adding a realm in m2.conf
>>> 
>>> [thegreat-new-a-la-mode-slf4j-impl]
>>> load       path to my great new slf4j impl/*.jar
>>> 
>>> Then
>>> 
>> MAVEN_OPTS="-Dmaven.logger.impl=thegreat-new-a-la-mode-slf4j-impl"
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't think that's particularly easy and additionally opens us up to 
>> having to specifically support any SLF4J implementation which I don't think 
>> is wise.
>> 
>> I think we need to pick one and go with it. If users want something 
>> different 
>> they can change the structure of the distribution.
>> 
>>> Anyway just tested with sonar and
>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
>>> org.codehaus.mojo:sonar-maven-plugin:2.0:sonar (default-cli) on
>>> project hello-world: Can not execute Sonar:
>>> ch.qos.logback.classic.LoggerContext cannot be cast to
>>> ch.qos.logback.classic.LoggerContext
>>> I always love such classloader message :-)
>>> 
>>> So I need to investigate a little bit more but not so far from having
>>> that for sonar
>>> BTW works fine for classic use case.
>>> 
>>> If you want to test that a build is available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~olamy/maven/dynamic-logging-impl/
>>> 
>>> 2012/12/1 Jason van Zyl <[email protected]>:
>>>> 
>>>> 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]
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix 
>> bad 
>> ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. 
>> 
>> -- Paul Graham
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------

We know what we are, but know not what we may be.

  -- Shakespeare





Reply via email to