Check:
http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#yet_another_facade
the biggest win is that you avoid class loading issues!
ryan
On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 17:07 -0400, Ryan McKinley wrote:
How do you feel about using SLF4J rather then commons logging?
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 17:07 -0400, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> How do you feel about using SLF4J rather then commons logging?
>
> In my opinion, SLF4J is a ton easier to deal with and more flexible.
> Solr will be moving to SLF4J after the 1.3 release...
Never used it before but I am very open for
How do you feel about using SLF4J rather then commons logging?
In my opinion, SLF4J is a ton easier to deal with and more flexible.
Solr will be moving to SLF4J after the 1.3 release...
ryan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAI
On Sep 11, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Their is a 3rd way: a PMC can start a subproject of a TLP w/o the
incubator as long as it doesn't have any code.
It seems silly at best, and really paranoid as Santiago said at
worst, to me that Thorsten should have to fill out a software
Their is a 3rd way: a PMC can start a subproject of a TLP w/o the
incubator as long as it doesn't have any code.
It seems silly at best, and really paranoid as Santiago said at worst,
to me that Thorsten should have to fill out a software grant in order
to give his code to HttpComps (or Luc
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what others think, but I could imaging small, dedicated
>>>
Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
I don't know what others think, but I could imaging small, dedicated
labs going more or less directly to other projects as sub-projects.
Yeah, I would like to hear the op
