On Dec 18, 2007 4:58 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: > > > 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 ? >
Interesting point. > > 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 Amen! > > Of course, it's not MINA's task to promote SLF4J but at least we > should give it the credit it deserves. > Agreed. > > Or perhaps a very fine wrapper if Trustin come with something really > light, and non intrusive. > > > > Julien > Again Maarten is right this would send the wrong message. I think we should just move on here. Take it as official I'm vetoing this and other logging suggestions with a binding vote. -1 It's done. Let's move on. You can revisit it next year if you like. Alex
