Thanks Mark for the documentation effort! I also added a section
about configuring SLF4J. It should be enough...
Cheers,
Trustin
On 9/28/07, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I added a simple logging tutorial to
> http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html
>
> I hope this will help and at least
I added a simple logging tutorial to
http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html
I hope this will help and at least we will have something to point people
towards.
On 9/27/07, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> > Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
I would much more
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Trustin,
> > > >
> > > > I don't like this idea.
> > > >
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Trustin,
> > >
> > > I don't like this idea.
> > > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> >
On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Trustin,
> >
> > I don't like this idea.
> > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
> >
> > And IMHO it won't s
Hi Trustin,
How about inquiring with Ceki to see if these concerns can be
addressed then see what other options exist? The idea of yet another
logging implementation is a bit nausiating: there are so many already
in existance. Adding yet another one to the mix especially to be
maintained by the m
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Trustin,
>
> I don't like this idea.
> It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
>
> And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> our mechanism fo
Well... since the documentation for SLF4J is very clear and easy to
understand, I don't really see a reason to abandon it. Personally I
think the (original) choice for this logging facade was perfect
(especially since you can change the actual logger on the spot, without
any code changes).
Je
Hi Trustin,
I don't like this idea.
It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
Maybe a well-written FAQ entry a
Hi,
I know SLF4J is a great logging framework for us, but I encounter with
many questions with configuring SLF4J to work with one's favorite
logging frameworks very often, via ML, IRC or personal e-mail.
IIRC, we already talked about providing a way to choose the logging
framework, but I thought
12 matches
Mail list logo