On Dec 17, 2007 11:29 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:25 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > We can ask Log4J team to fix this issue and it will be fixed, but, > > again, considering that people wants to use the older version of Log4J > > or doesn't want to upgrade the Log4J due to some reason (e.g. custom > > patch) won't see this problem resolved in Log4J. > > And.. that's why I am suggesting a thin layer for logging. > > Suppose that the log4j team fixes this issue in their next release, > then the only people who would need this thin layer > are people who > a) want to use a MINA based appender (which is not yet part of > standard log4j as far as I know) > b) AND don't want to upgrade to a newer log4j version > > IMO, that is a rather weak argument for resorting to our own "thin > layer for logging". > Yes I agree completely. It's unnecessary to add yet another logging layer. I know several JBoss people are resentful with having to use SLF4J while now using MINA but there is no reason why we should push forward with that. Why not just work with Ceki or see if you can get karma on that project to fix these problems and/or facilitate the advance of a release with the fix? Ceki, I am sure would appreciate that. Plus the work you do there can benefit other projects using this framework. I have CC'd Ceki to get his attention so we can do something sane about this. ... > 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. > There are many people in this situation. Adding yet another framework whether mini or not is going to add to the confusion. > > Of course, I would prefer it if we would only need SLF4J, but that's a > problem that MINA can not solve. > I am afraid that a thin layer in MINA will just make things more complex. > Absolutely! Alex
