RE: AW: slf4j and myfaces
Start voting? ;-) From: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:45 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces yes the -1 vote would be a veto in view of slf4j - no agreement - we would vote about jul. or as mario suggested - let's start voting about jul. @mario: yes - i'll wait until monday for sure. and we should vote a bit longer than usual - due to holidays (+ it's an important topic for all myfaces projects) regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/6 Ganesh gan...@j4fry.orgmailto:gan...@j4fry.org Hi, we could also vote first about slf4j and everybody who prefers jul should vote -1 if we don't have a majority for slf4j, we have to vote about jul. is that ok for everybody? From http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html my understanding of a -1 vote is different from this. Vetos A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc.). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. Better use the fraction system for voting on the logging system: * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.' * -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!' * -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' Best regards, Ganesh
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
here [1] you go! :) regards, gerhard [1] http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--jul-instead-of-commons-logging-td23948865.html 2009/6/9 Mario Ivankovits ma...@ops.co.at Start voting? ;-) *From:* Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:45 AM *To:* MyFaces Development *Subject:* Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces yes the -1 vote would be a veto in view of slf4j - no agreement - we would vote about jul. or as mario suggested - let's start voting about jul. @mario: yes - i'll wait until monday for sure. and we should vote a bit longer than usual - due to holidays (+ it's an important topic for all myfaces projects) regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/6 Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org Hi, we could also vote first about slf4j and everybody who prefers jul should vote -1 if we don't have a majority for slf4j, we have to vote about jul. is that ok for everybody? From http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html my understanding of a -1 vote is different from this. Vetos A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc.). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. Better use the fraction system for voting on the logging system: * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.' * -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!' * -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' Best regards, Ganesh
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
+1 for that, the issue simply is, there is a standard api, while not the best it works good enough (since JDK5) and it is simple enough to be used why not finally get rid of another dependency. I am not a huge fan of dependencies in base projects anyway, so everything which removes one gets definitely a +1 by me. Is there any disadvantages of moving over to straight JUL? Werner Mario Ivankovits schrieb: But why not use java.util.logging then at all. There is an example [1] which shows how to reroute it to any other logging impl. This too will remove the need of any logging dependency then. Look, with slf4j you will end with three dependencies. * the slf4j api * the commons-logging to slf4j bridge (for all the other libraries your app is going to use and which still are using commons-logging) * the slf4j impl (an since the impl itself provides nothing than the bridge, you need the logging impl to) If you are going to use java.util.logging - which is a pain to setup, but sufficient for many use-cases - these are three (up to four) dependencies too much - just for logging! I think, this will not be a bad move - and moves us completely out of line of this question once and for all I think. The java.util.logging api itself provides the same possibilities than we have today in our libraries - just different namings. Ciao, Mario
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
that would be possible as well. i just started with slf4j since we already discussed it and udo wrote about the switch to slf4j in the next release... we could also vote first about slf4j and everybody who prefers jul should vote -1 if we don't have a majority for slf4j, we have to vote about jul. is that ok for everybody? (i don't like the idea that every myfaces project ends up with its special logging framework dependency.) regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/6 Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com +1 for that, the issue simply is, there is a standard api, while not the best it works good enough (since JDK5) and it is simple enough to be used why not finally get rid of another dependency. I am not a huge fan of dependencies in base projects anyway, so everything which removes one gets definitely a +1 by me. Is there any disadvantages of moving over to straight JUL? Werner Mario Ivankovits schrieb: But why not use java.util.logging then at all. There is an example [1] which shows how to reroute it to any other logging impl. This too will remove the need of any logging dependency then. Look, with slf4j you will end with three dependencies. * the slf4j api * the commons-logging to slf4j bridge (for all the other libraries your app is going to use and which still are using commons-logging) * the slf4j impl (an since the impl itself provides nothing than the bridge, you need the logging impl to) If you are going to use java.util.logging - which is a pain to setup, but sufficient for many use-cases - these are three (up to four) dependencies too much - just for logging! I think, this will not be a bad move - and moves us completely out of line of this question once and for all I think. The java.util.logging api itself provides the same possibilities than we have today in our libraries - just different namings. Ciao, Mario
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
Hi, we could also vote first about slf4j and everybody who prefers jul should vote -1 if we don't have a majority for slf4j, we have to vote about jul. is that ok for everybody? From http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html my understanding of a -1 vote is different from this. Vetos A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc.). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. Better use the fraction system for voting on the logging system: * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.' * -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!' * -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' Best regards, Ganesh
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
yes the -1 vote would be a veto in view of slf4j - no agreement - we would vote about jul. or as mario suggested - let's start voting about jul. @mario: yes - i'll wait until monday for sure. and we should vote a bit longer than usual - due to holidays (+ it's an important topic for all myfaces projects) regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/6 Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org Hi, we could also vote first about slf4j and everybody who prefers jul should vote -1 if we don't have a majority for slf4j, we have to vote about jul. is that ok for everybody? From http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html my understanding of a -1 vote is different from this. Vetos A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc.). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. Better use the fraction system for voting on the logging system: * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.' * -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!' * -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' Best regards, Ganesh
Re: AW: slf4j and myfaces
Mario Ivankovits schrieb: Hi! The only downside I see is that we might break compatibility for java 1.4 since JUL gut some overhaul between 1.4 and 5, but on the other hand is it really important anymore? Which projects still have to be on 1.4 In 1.4.2 the log methods in question were already there. So - as a logging user only - this might not be a problem. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/logging/Logger.html Ok then everything is cleared up for me, then I am for JUL 100%, especially since it adds faster log handling with less locs compared to commons logging!
