On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Trustin, > > I don't like this idea. > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well. > > And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how > our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works. > > Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
Agreed, but there are some issues. > I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to > read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side > java should take the time to check it out. > > I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future. > See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users. Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too. Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here: http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging because Tomcat is using java.util.logging. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
