Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
hello all,
again the logging-framework topic :)
there were several discussions about it and i'm not aware of an agreement.
udo wrote [1]:
replace commons-logging with slf4j
as i know we agreed on using one logging framework dependency for all
myfaces projects.
if
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 05. Juni 2009 20:50
An: MyFaces Development
Betreff: Re: slf4j and myfaces
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 19:49, Mario Ivankovits ma...@ops.co.at wrote:
Hi!
Could one please eloberate a little bit more in detail what the pros are of
slf4j?
Pros:
No class loader ambiguousness
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
Just wait until Monday if possible, then enough
Mario Ivankovits schrieb:
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
Just wait until Monday if
I'd strongly prefer to see JUL instead of something else (including
JCL) now that it's part of the standard. In Ganesh-speak, +0.9 JUL,
-0.9 slf4j
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Mario Ivankovits ma...@ops.co.at wrote:
Hi!
The only downside I see is that we might break compatibility for java
I second what mike said.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Mike Kienenbergermkien...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd strongly prefer to see JUL instead of something else (including
JCL) now that it's part of the standard. In Ganesh-speak, +0.9 JUL,
-0.9 slf4j
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Mario
yep, Trinidad uses its own and I am not entirely sure if it is easy to
replace...
(the logger is sorta wrapper/facade for the standard logger)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Gerhard
Petracekgerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
hello all,
again the logging-framework topic :)
there were several
@matthias:
yes - that's the reason for my comment: ...external logging framework...
@udo:
imo we should discuss the logging topic before we have a release which
already uses slf4j - especially the suggestion of mario sounds interesting.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse
@mario:
which logging frameworks would be supported by such a wrapper. i can just
mention that there are logging frameworks out there which internally force
an exception and statically use entry x of the call hierarchy - so such a
wrapper would lead to wrong logging information.
regards,
gerhard
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 19:49, Mario Ivankovits ma...@ops.co.at wrote:
Hi!
Could one please eloberate a little bit more in detail what the pros are of
slf4j?
Pros:
No class loader ambiguousness (as you mentioned)
You get what you define (especially when using maven):
compile-dependency to
Development
*Betreff:* Re: slf4j and myfaces
@mario:
which logging frameworks would be supported by such a wrapper. i can just
mention that there are logging frameworks out there which internally force
an exception and statically use entry x of the call hierarchy - so such a
wrapper would lead
JCL and slf4j ARE ready-to-use logging wrappers.
+1
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2009/6/5 Manfred Geiler manfred.gei...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at
as we saw in previous discussions there are several different opinions. we
really discussed that topic a lot.
(i also don't really like the idea of having a myfaces logging facade which
does more or less the same as other solutions... as mentioned before i
thought mario was talking about something
13 matches
Mail list logo
