On Dec 18, 2007 9:51 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? ;)
I guess I could live with that ;-) regards, Maarten > > 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 >
