I assume there are no dependencies within the code which would allow the users to still give the option to use logback? log4j 2 is still in beta. Do we know when it should be released?
Just my two cents... Thanks Oli ________________________________________ From: cschneider...@gmail.com [cschneider...@gmail.com] on behalf of Christian Schneider [ch...@die-schneider.net] Sent: 22 July 2013 13:30 To: dev@syncope.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2 +1 For switching to log4j. I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on the log framework and also works great in OSGi. Christian 2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgro...@apache.org> > Hi all, > I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I > was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2 > (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!). > I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be > minimal. > > Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency > level. > > WDYT? > > [1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-** > 20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc<http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc> > > -- > Francesco Chicchiriccò > > ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member > http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/<http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/> > > -- -- Christian Schneider http://www.liquid-reality.de<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de> Open Source Architect http://www.talend.com<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
