+1 for that, the issue simply is, there is a standard api, while not the
best it works good enough (since JDK5) and it is simple enough to be used
why not finally get rid of another dependency.
I am not a huge fan of dependencies in base projects anyway, so
everything which removes one gets definitely a +1 by me.
Is there any disadvantages of moving over to straight JUL?
Werner
Mario Ivankovits schrieb:
But why not use java.util.logging then at all. There is an example [1] which
shows how to reroute it to any other logging impl.
This too will remove the need of any logging dependency then.
Look, with slf4j you will end with three dependencies.
* the slf4j api
* the commons-logging to slf4j bridge (for all the other libraries your app is
going to use and which still are using commons-logging)
* the slf4j impl (an since the impl itself provides nothing than the bridge,
you need the logging impl to)
If you are going to use java.util.logging - which is a pain to setup, but
sufficient for many use-cases - these are three (up to four) dependencies too
much - just for logging!
I think, this will not be a bad move - and moves us completely out of line of
this question once and for all I think.
The java.util.logging api itself provides the same possibilities than we have
today in our libraries - just different namings.
Ciao,
Mario
