ok - i thought you mean something different... i didn't thought that you mean something like: >I know, we end up having a slf4j within myfaces
do you mean to have a wrapper e.g. as commons-module [1]? -> every myfaces project has a dependency to it? regards, gerhard [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/commons/trunk/ http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/5 Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> > Why? > > > > I think our wrapper can do pretty much the same than slf4j does. Having a > > public static Log log = LogFactory.getLog(MyClass.class) > > can easily be supported by our logging framework. > > > > Then, any known logging framework has the most possible information > available, whatever it does with it. > > > > If a logging framework use a static position of the stack trace, to gather > its information, is bound to fail anyway and has to be considered a bad > implementation, no? > > > > AFAIK, in terms of cl class loader issues, having a static log ist not bad > if the logging facade has been loaded with the same class-loader than the > library were loaded. Which should always be the case with our own wrapper. > > > > Yes, I know, we end up having a slf4j within myfaces. But I see no point > having a dependency to such a simple API - which exactly adds no value, but > forces every cl user to setup the sfl4j-over-cl bridge. > > > > IMHO, the java way to do it is to provide our own simple logging wrapper, > by using jul as default impl. I know that jul sucks, but this then can > easily be customized by the developer. > > > > Mojarra also uses jul, no? So good or bad, this i something we have to deal > with anyway - providing a pluggable logging api is fair enough then. I > think, most of the time the user will not care and just start using jul. > > > > Too bad that SUN did not manage to provide a logging api which has been > widely accepted :-( > > > > Ciao, > > Mario > > > > *Von:* Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Juni 2009 20:22 > *An:* MyFaces Development > *Betreff:* Re: slf4j and myfaces > > > > @mario: > which logging frameworks would be supported by such a wrapper. i can just > mention that there are logging frameworks out there which internally force > an exception and statically use entry x of the call hierarchy - so such a > wrapper would lead to wrong logging information. > > regards, > gerhard > > (after reformulating the previous mail quite quickly the text wasn't > perfect - but i think you know what i mean...) > > > 2009/6/5 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > @matthias: > > > yes - that's the reason for my comment: "...external logging framework..." > > @udo: > imo we should discuss the logging topic before we have a release which > already uses slf4j - especially the suggestion of mario sounds interesting. > > > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > 2009/6/5 Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> > > > > Hi! > > > > Could one please eloberate a little bit more in detail what the pros are of > slf4j? > > > > Notice, I switched to it in our company project - but always using the > commons-logging api and just used the slf4j-over-cl wrapper. This is > something wich is possible for each and ever user of myfaces already, just > by adjusting the depencendcies correctly. > > > > Lately I even switched to my own logging wrapper, but this is another > story. In the end, everything still uses the cl API which is proven to work > fine. (I created the org.apache.commons.logging package structure with my > own classes - which for sure is not possible for myfaces!). > > > > > > I still think, that using the cl api is the best we can do for our users. > If they then use cl as implementation - and if this is considered "good" - > is another story, but nothing WE should anticipate. > > As far as I can say the cl api is rock solid, just the class-loader stuff > is a pain. But (again AFAIK), slf4j does not solve it, it just does not deal > with it. > > > > Before we start using any other logging api I'd suggest to build our own > thin myfaces-logging wrapper where one then can easily plug in log4j, cl, > jul (java utils ogging) or whatever - we do not even have to provide any > other impl than for jul. > > As a plus, this then will remove a dependency - a dependency to any logging > framework - which - in terms of dependencies can be considered as a "good" > thing, no? > > > > Ciao, > > Mario > > > > *Von:* Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Juni 2009 17:18 > *An:* MyFaces Development > *Betreff:* slf4j and myfaces > > > > hello all, > > again the logging-framework topic :) > there were several discussions about it and i'm not aware of an agreement. > > udo wrote [1]: > >replace commons-logging with slf4j > > as i know we "agreed" on using one logging framework dependency for all > myfaces projects. > if i remember correctly, most of us prefer slf4j. > > -> i suggest to vote about using slf4j in all myfaces projects. > (at least if a project is using an external logging framework.) > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Trinidad-vs-Tobago-p23884581.html > > > > >
