On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:08:15 -0500 "Alex Karasulu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 4:47 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). > > > > Can't live with another dependency that will look 'ugly'? Come on! > You know anyone can live with that but they might not like it. This > is not our problem. > > Alex I know it's stupid but providing them a patchset (automatically generated) or a mina.jar bundled with slf4j-nop, will make them happy in their ignorance. That won't bloat, that won't hurt sfl4j, that won't eat your cat and I'm pretty sure one day they will be bored and integrate slf4j. I can say that because 2 years ago I was running a MINA version patched for removing *all* the call to slf4j (and some other tunning) but since it proved to be a nice piece of code and I was quite bored to maintain it and I finally adopted slf4j. My only regret is to have too much code depending on log4j. Julien
