No more APIs on top of APIs! slf4j is very OSGi friendly, by the way. If side effects are minimal, I vote for it.
Heiko On Thursday, January 28, 2010, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote: > Last logging question, I promise! > > I'm about to implement MDC in Lift's logging, but it seems more and more > layers are introduced. > > So before adding another adapter on top of e.g. Slf4j which is already > an adapter on top of e.g. logback I thought I would see if there are any > objections to making Lift always log through Slf4j? > > There wouldn't be any API changes and Log4j could still be the default > backend, with the config settings as we currently have, only there > wouldn't be any Log4JLogger. > > On the positive side, Lift's logging is simpler: only interface to Slf4j > (we would keep the log4j config stuff) > > Downside is two more jars if you're using log4j: slf4j-api & > slf4j-log4j12 > > Thoughts? > > /Jeppe > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > -- Heiko Seeberger Work: weiglewilczek.com Blog: heikoseeberger.name Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
