On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:26:13 +0100 "Maarten Bosteels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> about (1) and (3) : I have (almost) no experience with java.util.logging but > I from the info in this thread I understand that is necessary to set a > system property to use a custom LogManager. > This means two webapps deployed on the same tomcat instance MUST share the > same LogManager ? > One could argue that this is tomcat's fault, because it should have separate > system properties per webapp ... Yes, but the LogManager is the container's responsibility. It doesn't really matter that there's only one. You can still set separate handlers for each webapp if you want to. > I don't understand the so-called "barrier of configuring SLF4J". > There is NO configuration, just using the jar of your choice. And optionally > configuring the framework of your choice. > > And I don't understand why people have problems with a dependency on SLF4J ? The problem is not applications. The problem is other frameworks that want to use MINA as the underlying transport handler. Many of these frameworks must then depend on more than one log facade jar. > I don't like the idea of a thin layer inside MINA, why would that be any > better than depend on SLF4J ? > Would people A find it more acceptable if the SLF4J classes where included > inside the mina jar ? (this doesn't make sense to me, but then they wouldn't > SEE the SLF4J dependency) Yes, that would be better - but then the slf4j classes have to be relocated under another package (perhaps something like jarjar could help with this). Otherwise other projects doing the same thing may conflict. > SLF4J has a richer API than JUL (MDC, Marker, varargs, ...) > Using java.util.logging directly in MINA means we would lose the ability to > use this API. Using a wrapper class solves these issues. - DML
