On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:29:24 +0100 "Maarten Bosteels"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, there are currently two logging facades that are widely used
> by frameworks/libraries: jakarta-commons-logging (JCL) and SLF4J.
> The consequence is that for any project with dependencies, there is a
> reasonable chance that both logging facades need to be on the
> classpath. But is that a problem ?
>
> Our application depends on JCL (because of spring,) and on SLF4J
^^^^^^^^^^^
> (because of MINA) and we let both facades point to log4j.
> Works pefectly. Really, I do not see the problem.
>
> Of course, I would prefer it if we would only need SLF4J, but that's a
> problem that MINA can not solve.
Some people have feelings stronger than preference about it. Also keep
in mind: you've got an application. You are not developing a framework.
How would you feel about things if MINA required slf4j AND jcl AND
log4j? That would seem excessive, would it not? It might even affect
one's willingness to use the framework.
This is the situation that I (and others with whom I work) face
currently. As a framework developer, I would not care if there was
only one logging dependency - but the other libraries that my project
depends on all use different logging frameworks. This especially
becomes an issue if you consider the wider world of software (beyond
ASF projects). Though most ASF projects use slf4j or jcl, this is not
true in general terms.
Therefore I am making an effort to convince the author(s) of these
frameworks upon which my project relies, to consider making logging
either configurable with no dependencies, or optional altogether.
Using JDK logging seems like a reasonable compromise.
- DML
