Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
(with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would
be minimal.
Besides
On 22/07/2013 12:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
On 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and
I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to
log4j 2 (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I
Il 22/07/2013 12:50, Massimiliano Perrone ha scritto:
On 22/07/2013 12:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
On 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1]
and I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from
[cschneider...@gmail.com] on behalf of Christian
Schneider [ch...@die-schneider.net]
Sent: 22 July 2013 13:30
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log
:30
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log framework and also works great in OSGi.
Christian
2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò ilgro...@apache.org
