Fwiw, once maven anoints a logging framework, it will be near impossible to switch. IMO that is.
Gary On Dec 9, 2012, at 16:54, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to add my > perspective on this topic. > > For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of the more > advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already also stated. > Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while we > investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then select an > implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple can't > do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option > unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies? I'll > leave that to others working with that to decide. > > But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my choice would > be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being a past > experience where I developed an audit logging solution based on logback, > where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies when it came > to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with this fixed > though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when there is > proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that he will > help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working with log4j2 > will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I know Ceki's. > > But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would be so much > better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release and do > a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although using > slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching impl later > on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some people do > solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar plugin for > example). > > /Anders > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> >>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: >>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2. >>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy. >>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it. >>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in case of any >>>> issue we could have. >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is actually >>> going, but I'm firmly opposed >>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3. >>> >>> >> +1 >> >> >>> Kristian >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
