On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to push this along and I agree with Stephen insofar as if you > prefer an implementation then there should be a branch to support that > preference. Thus far I have not seen anything aside from Stephen's efforts > which are a PoC so the choice is between SLF4J Simple, Logback and Log4J2.
You're original plan was to get a release out with Simple and fight later. That would be fine with me. Based on prior discussions and votes, I don't see anyone vetoing that commit or a vote failing to pass. I'm not sure what I think would happen if you just committed logback or log4j at this point; they seem much of a muchness to me. You prefer logback, but log4j floats certain boats. > > If we want to put aside the debate, Ceki has figured out a way for use SLF4J > Simple by resetting the streams and logging level. Which I can try if we want > to go down that path. I didn't have to do any work in SLF4J myself so I'm > fine with this approach. > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: >>>> Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some code >>> to >>>> make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and >>> committing >>>> it, those branches are dead... as are those choices. >>>> >>>> IF YOU WANT TO SPONSOR ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES THEN WRITE THE DAMN CODE TO >>>> GET THEM WALKING AGAIN >>>> >>>> That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table... >>>> >>>> JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs >>>> I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating >>> for >>>> log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes the >>>> ITs. >>> branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this >>> jenkins job >>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/core-integration-testing-maven-3-jdk-1.6-log4j2/ >> >> >> Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will now >> rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up >> from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-) >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent third >>>> party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration tests >>> to >>>> pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either has a >>>> branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are needing >>>> to give better proof. >>>> >>>> Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing against >>>> log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one of the >>>> other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing some >>>> code...) >>> My 0.02 euros. >>> Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue. >>> And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports >>> from folks on the other thread) >>> I read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html (agree >>> benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if >>> runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care. >>> Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good >>> license for our Maven. >>> >> >> These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I have >> not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options through >> the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical >> debates. >> >> >>> >>>> >>> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're > talking about. > > -- John von Neumann > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
