Hello, I agree with Simon, too. All MyFaces projects should use one logging impl. But this doesn't mean we should stay with commons-logging.
Since a half year slf4j is on my wish list. But I don't interested in a slf4j vs commons-logging battle. slf4j has a better api compare to commons-logging. Replacing commons-logging with slf4j should not cause any impact for your customers and staff. It's just a different dependency. I'm interested in using Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. It would be nice if myfaces add support for including the viewId or something else in a log message, if the underlying log implementation supports this. I like the support for formated log messages in slf4j. Regards Bernd Paul Spencer schrieb: > I agree with Simon, that all MyFaces projects need to use one logger. > That said, we must assume that application developers using MyFaces > projects will not use the same logger that MyFaces uses. Thus the > logger we use should be pluggable so the application developer can use > one logger for his application and MyFaces. In many ways > commons-logging has worked for both MyFaces and the application > developer. Simon has a case in which it does not. > > In my case, I have used commons-logging with Log4J for years in the > applications I distribute and support. The support staff and customers > are trained on how to use and adjust the Log4J configuration and how to > use the log files produced, so any logging changes by MyFaces will be > evaluated in part on the impact to my customers and staff. > > Paul Spencer > > > simon wrote: >> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 12:07 +0100, Bernd Bohmann wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> i think slf4j is a better alternative for logging compare to >>> commons-logging. I don't like to start a slf4j vs commons-logging >>> battle. >>> >>> Just ask google. >>> >>> I will change the tobago logging to slf4j. >> >> Asking google is a very bad idea in this case. What you get is the >> average opinion. And the *average* coder out there is a fool. Even sites >> by people claiming to be experts must be treated carefully; he who >> shouts loudest, and makes the boldest claims, is not always the wisest. >> >> If you do not care about supporting localised error messages, and do not >> intend to use slf4j-specific features like "markers" then the >> commons-logging API is the best because it is the simplest. >> Note that we are talking about just what API myfaces code should call. >> Other implementations than the one from commons can be used; for example >> slf4j provides one. Whether the commons-logging implementation is good >> can be debated, but there is nothing really wrong with the api - except >> *possibly* for localised messages. >> >> If you do care about supporting localised error messages, then I suggest >> you keep an eye on this thread: >> http://www.nabble.com/Internationalisation-of-log-messages-to14360301.html >> >> >> Commons-logging deliberately does not support localisation *within* the >> logging library, leaving that to the caller. But as raised in that >> thread, it is not currently clear that slf4j properly supports >> localisation either. >> >> The java.util.logging api does support localisation, but it's not clear >> to me that this is in practice useable. The default implementation is >> crap, and there are not many alternatives because the api is horrible to >> implement. >> >> It would be better if all the myfaces projects agree on some logging >> approach; otherwise an app using myfaces-core+myfaces-commons+trinidad >> +tobago might need 4 different logging wrappers in the classpath. >> >> Regards, >> >> Simon >> >> > >
