OK, you're right. Fair point about not using the commons-logging brought in transitively. It is a bad habit of mine, I guess. I think the comment still stands for log4j though - as you say, no class from log4j is used in mrunit and as we don't have a log4j.properties file, it is never invoked. I think this one could be removed.
If the end user wanted to use log4j (or a different logging framework), shouldn't they include it themselves? Our commons-logging code would take care of the rest. On 9 September 2012 20:45, Jim Donofrio <[email protected]> wrote: > I mean complaints on the internet about commons-logging in general. > > We cannot remove commons-logging and log4j from our pom and rely on hadoop > because that is not good use of Maven. If anything log4j should be changed > to runtime scope since it is not referenced statically anywhere in an > import. I will make a JIRA to fix that. > > > > On 09/09/2012 03:32 PM, Dave Beech wrote: > >> I think I'd prefer to stick with commons-logging to be consistent with >> Hadoop's code. That's a good point about the dependencies though - we >> could >> simply remove commons-logging and log4j from our pom right now and the >> build would still succeed. As Jim mentioned, commons-logging is brought in >> by Hadoop transitively and log4j isn't required at all by our code. >> >> I'm aware that slf4j is probably regarded as being better than >> commons-logging these days, but I don't see much point in switching. >> >> Where have the complaints come from? I haven't seen anything on the JIRA >> or >> mailing list about logging. Just curious. >> >> Cheers, >> Dave >> >> On 9 September 2012 19:48, Jim Donofrio <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Since we only use logging for the most part to print out basic >>> information >>> for comparing expected inputs and outputs, what are the thoughts on >>> switching to the jdk logger. I admit to not knowing much about logging >>> but >>> there seems to be tons of complaints out there about commons-logging >>> which >>> we dont really need since our logging needs are simple. We could also >>> remove our dependencies on log4j and commons-logging even though hadoop >>> brings these in transitively anyway. >>> >>> slf4j would be another option but then users would have to no to include >>> a >>> slf4j binding, I would rather avoid that. >>> >>> If you seem to agree, I will make this change. >>> >>> >
