On Dec 18, 2007 10:47 AM, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:32:41 +0100 > Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Trustin, > > > > I think that everybody should keep calm and peaceful. What are we > > discussing about ? A logging framework and nothing else. > > > > As you said, you have added a page explaining how to use SLF4J with > > MINA and another project. It works, it is simple, and you have added > > the full howto. So what is the problem? Does someone will trade off > > against MINA just because he has 'problem' with slf4j when we _know_ > > that slf4j is not a problem at all? come on ... Adding 2 jars in a > > classpath is a good price to pay for benefit from MINA. > > > > Hi Emmanuel, > I think everybody understood your point. I think everybody agree here > for say slf4j is really not a problem. The idea is to give some > solution for the people who can't live with another dependency that > will look 'ugly' in their classpath (I know you think it's stupid :D). > > So that why releasing a patchset for them, or a mina.jar bundled with > slf4j-nop will be fine and will hurt nobody.
Question remains if the MINA team should try to solve this, since we all agree that there is no problem with SLF4J ? I hope we're not sending out the wrong message about SLF4J by creating such a tool ? I think a lot of people (including me) would really like to see a massive adoption of SLF4J by other projects (instead of JCL) so that the entire java community can stop wasting time discussing logging frameworks :-p Of course, it's not MINA's task to promote SLF4J but at least we should give it the credit it deserves. Maarten > Or perhaps a very fine wrapper if Trustin come with something really light, > and non intrusive. > > Julien
