Ah, well that's the good thing about using commons-logging (and maybe slf4j too, I've never used it). The user doesn't have to provide a logging jar if they don't want to. If they don't, the JDK logger gets used by default. It offers them the choice.
On 9 September 2012 21:54, Jim Donofrio <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes in theory commons-logging would take care of the rest. If we went with > that approach I would suggest going with slf4j. However, I dont think a > test framework should require users to have to provide a logging jar. I > think it makes mrunit harder to use than necessary. > > > On 09/09/2012 04:25 PM, Dave Beech wrote: > >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
