Hi David, On Dec 17, 2007 5:46 PM, David M. Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Suppose I am developing framework X that depends on projectA, projectB and projectC and suppose also that * projectA requires SLF4J * projectB requires JCL * projectC requires log4j Then I would take these steps to try to improve the situation: (1) try (hard) to convince the projectC team to switch to SLF4J (2) when (1) fails: search an alternative for projectC (3) try (probably less hard) to convince the projectB team to use SLF4J instead of JCL (4) if (3) fails, explain to the users of X why they need both jcl and SLF4J on their classpath (5) live with it. > 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. So, you would be better off trying to convince the teams of these non-ASF projects to switch their logging framework ? > > 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. IMO, SLF4J makes logging configurable AND optional (using slf4j-nop.jar). regards, Maarten
