Ceki Gulcu skrev:
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
As such I see no reason not to promote logback - you just need to
communicate very clearly that you are advertising for some other
software that happens to have been written by you. IMHO that is
better than the official slf4j text is biased instead of neutral.
It is a question of balance. While over-publicizing logback within the
context of SLF4J may be unwarranted, I think discreetly mentioning
logback as direct implementation of SLF4J, as is done in revision 1325
[1], strikes a reasonable balance. Logback is after all the only
direct implementation of SLF4J and deserves credit for that.
I humbly disagree, and "deserves credit for that" feels more like
boasting than providing neutral information (as you happen to have
written both pieces of software AND the manual providing the link).
Frankly I think you would be best of by plainly mentioning that you
wrote both and that *you* think that logback is a good choice (perhaps
by listing a number of reasons). Your current approach might be
considered sneaky for some, who might even think that if you didn't say
THAT up front, what else have you chosen not to mention?
And again, _I'm_ fine with you giving logback all the credit it
deserves. Just be frank about your attitude :)
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
