On Dec 18, 2007 3:40 AM, 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.
You understood plain wrong. It's not about JBoss people but about any possible users who want to build their own framework on top of MINA. Do you think I am pushing this because I am working for JBoss? Never. I got this kind of request more than 10 times in my previous company. What does that mean? There are much more people than you expect who care about the number of JARs and complication related with using many logging frameworks at the same time. > 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. SLF4J cannot help this problem because SLF4J itself doesn't have any 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. > > There are many people in this situation. Adding yet another framework > whether mini or not is going to add to the confusion. It's also often true that people get confused with configuring SLF4J. Yeah, it's brain-dead easy once understood, but it adds a lot of confusion to novice. Anyways, we have the dedicated page for logging configuration so 'the confusion' you are referring to is not a problem at all. As you already know, it's just adding one line of code to switch the preferred logging framework from users' point of view and I don't think that's really a big burden comparing to adding two JARs in the classpath. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
