Personally, I'd have to disagree, choosing an inferior logging engine just
because you don't have to add an additional jar file to you're war file is
bad reasoning. SLF4j is a very thin API that leaves the decision of logging
engine to the implementor, which is where it belongs.
(*Chris*)
On Aug 7, 2011 1:35 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging].
>
> If we really have to reconsider this stuff, then I'd propose to
>
> a) Use java.util.logging, because it doesn't require any additional
> dependencies and is guaranteed to work anywhere.
> b) Carefully document how to bridge jul to log4j, because that's
> exactly what's required in almost any application container I am aware
> of. (The exception being Tomcat, which uses jul anyways.)
> c) If the slf4j fans insist, add similar documentation for bridging
> jul to slf4j.
>
> Jochen
>
> --
> Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
> will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
> everyone.
>
> John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
>
