Sorry forgot to CC Ceki after mentioning it. Ceki could you take a minute to help us resolve these issues which are pushing towards the emergence of yet another logging framework now inside MINA. I think much of this is a result of the JBoss push to do away with SLF4J dependencies.
Alex On Dec 17, 2007 1:40 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
