Hi Andreas,

yes, removing slf4j would solve the conflict but not the problem that I can't use logback with Pax Exam.

From a recent discussion on this list, I understood that Pax Logging emulates various logging APIs including SLF4J and redirects all log events to an embedded log4j backend which is hard to configure and cannot be exchanged by logback or other backends.

So currently, some of my log messages are logged via logback, which is what I want, while some others are logged via log4j which is caused by Pax Logging provisioned by Pax Exam.

As I said earlier, Pax Logging seems to solve problems I've never had, and I don't find it useful. Unlike Pax Exam which is very useful, and even more so if it didn't force its own choice of logging on me.

If Pax Logging continues to be the default used by Pax Exam, there should be an option to turn this off and let the user provision their own logging bundles.

And I wonder if there's any workaround in the current version to force Pax Exam not to provision Pax Logging, short of hacking the sources.

Best regards,
Harald

Am 31.07.2011 07:16, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
Hey Harald,

You do not have to include the real slf4j bundles into the runtime
environment or pax-exam if pax-logging exists. If you have some imports
in your META-INF/MANIFEST.MF those are fulfilled by pax-logging-api. Can
you try to simply remove the slf4j api from your integratoin tests?

Kind regards,
Andreas

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 23:04, Harald Wellmann <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Pax Exam 2.1.0 automatically provisions

    org.ops4j.pax.logging.pax-__logging-api_1.6.2

    How can I avoid that?

    My system contains the real slf4.api bundle, and the fake package
    org.slf4j contained in Pax Logging causes conflicts: some of my
    bundles get wired to slf4j.api, and some to Pax Logging, so the log
    messages appear in two different formats.

    Regards,
    Harald

    _________________________________________________
    general mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.ops4j.org/__mailman/listinfo/general
    <http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general>




_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to