On Dec 18, 2007 5:38 PM, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:01:40 +0900 > "Trustin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 18, 2007 3:34 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Trustin Lee wrote: > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > > However, taking > > > > the item #4 into picture, it leads me to think we need a thin > > > > built-in layer for logging that is dedicated to MINA. > > > Please, don't ! This is MINA, a Network framework, not a Logger > > > framework ! We already have so many meta-meta-meta-loger around > > > there:) > > > > Yeah, it's a framework and I don't want it to force others to use the > > logging framework of our preference. Why should we do that? Because > > we are satisfied with SLF4J? Yes I am, but it simply doesn't make any > > sense to other people. > > > > As David said, what would people think if he or she has mina-core.jar, > > slf4j-log4j12.jar, log4j.jar and commons-logging.jar? > > > > Moreover, what I am suggesting is not about embeding another logging > > framework but adding a few logger classes, which is minimal, and it > > will not be used anywhere outside of MINA code itself. > > > > Trustin > > Hi, > First of all, logging is an important issue for me, because it's a main > selling point of the product I work on and the most dangerous feature > for my flash memory based systems. > > But I'm not that obsessed too ;)
No you are not. I can assure that. :D > I was quite skeptical with having *another* dependency with slf4j, but > I can say I'm satisfied today. No problems with slf4j, and I'm > happy knowing I can change the underlying framework *easily*. > > We all agree configuring slf4j is a piece of cake (drop the good jar). > > I can understand seeing another jar in the dependencies list can annoy > some potential MINA users (who said politics ?:D). > > I think what Trustin got in mind is something *very* thin so perhaps if > we see the code, everybody will calm down and think it's a good > mix of the two world. > > Anyway if the thin layer can't make everybody agree why not simply > provide some scripts/tools/whatever for quickly patch the code for > removing the dependencies and inserting your logging statement ? We can do that, too. The problem though is that we have an IoSessionLogger class that implements SLF4J Logger interface directly. Once we can provide a solution for this one class, then we are all good. We can keep our official distribution stick to SLF4J and let people convert it to use other logging framework by applying some automated patch. I'd like to use Spoon project to create a tool that does the trick and open source it. WDYT? Doesn't it sound like almost a perfect solution? ;) If there's no objection, let me start this project in the Apache Labs or somewhere else. However, I'm not sure about what to do when this attempt fails. My kernel will panic, eek! :D Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
