Trustin Lee 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.
No, simply because it works. Don't fix it :) As there are already 2
existing logger plus at least 2 meta-logger, you _won't_ be able to
please everyone. We would have chose CL a while back, and we would have
seen the very same problem. As far as we know, SLF4J hasn't be a problem
at all, so why do we have ro suddenly change because a dude asked for
this change ?
As David said, what would people think if he or she has mina-core.jar,
slf4j-log4j12.jar, log4j.jar and commons-logging.jar?
They will think : "Thanks to maven, I don't have to grab myself those
jars from the web" !
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.
This is exactly the same thing : you start with a thin abstraction
layer, and you end with a meta-meta-[-meta*]-looger again, inside MINA,
cluttering the code. This is a typical NIH syndrom. You are trying to
cure the symptoms, not the causes.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
