Ceki Gulcu skrev den 08-12-2008 12:41:
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
I believe that Curt Arnold may be somewhat right in that this is a
matter of Apache endorsement. This is purely guesswork.
I still think that log4j should have a "Best practices" list, where
the "use slf4j framework" should be on the list for backend
independence, to inform the users as early as possible.
Sigh. My proposal is a wake up call for log4j. The project can go back
to slumber or come back to life by providing a valuable new feature to
the java developer community.
The problem with your proposal is that there is no pressing NEED for
doing so. You have yourself provided the library that removed that need!
Frankly I see no technical reason for your proposal - the graph you
showed was a bit ugly - but not extremely so. Things converged nicely
at the slf4j level, which was your intend all along, and which has been
very successful.
I agree that the log4j is currently in a very uninteresting place
developmentwise, but so be it. As long as there hasn't been a consensus
on where to go from here - and WHY - it is hard to initiate a
coordinated development effort.
Poohing my proposal under the pretext that it is a grab at Apache
brand is extremely offensive. A little modesty regarding the
importance of the Apache or log4j brands, would be a welcome change.
As I am not involved with Apache in any other way than being a user of
the products, and spent some time reporting bugs here and there, I
believe I can say that I do not have any personal interest in
"protecting" Apache or log4j. I believe that slf4j uses the right
approach - load time binding - to select logger framework, but I am not
singleminded about it. Everything I write is my personal opinion only.
I think, however, that the Apache brand is extremely strong in the
development community, as it has proven to stay around and has enough
"mass" to ensure that projects stay maintained (and if not, that they
are appropriately taken care of). You yourself know how strong the
log4j brand is amonst developers, and I believe there was a reason that
you chose back then to move it to Apache. It is a top level project,
which is an accomplishment in itself. Kudos for that.
I am not poohing your proposal, I am wondering what is going on here.
Would you care to explain why this suddenly is so important, if the
Apache and log4j brands are unimportant?
And by the way:
For those who don't know I am currently adding stuff to the slf4j-ext
sub-project, and the logback-incubator but I am not more involved than
that. I am a pragmatic who basically wants to reach a suitable
solution which can live "forever" being maintained as that is
traditionally how long code lives in our company. Apache has a very
good record in this regard.
You have a very valid point here. slf4j has not quite settled down
yet - IMO - regarding features and releases so it would make perfect
sense to keep log4j and slf4j distinct and disentangled.
SLF4J has not settled down? What do you mean exactly? Do mean
slf4j-ext (slf4j-extensions) or slf4j-api?
I know - as I am providing code for it - that the slf4j-ext project is
not settled down, but I was thinking of the API. I have not
investigated closely, but since the version numbering is common for all
of slf4j it is hard to identify how much or how little has changed and when.
If there has been an announcement that slf4j-api is effectively frozen
for the rest of the version 1.X's I've unfortunately missed it.
(and please don't take any of this personally - rather, consider it an
opportunity to respond instead of having to deal with what people THINK
you mean :)
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
