On 12/6/2008 6:27 AM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
>
> I believe that the positive in decoupling the logging implementation
> from the application will vastly overshadow any inconvinience in this
> regard. Most if not all of the work has been done in the slf4j project.
Right. "Most if not all
First let me say that I am in favor of log4j natively supporting the
SLF4J API in 2.0. As I've also stated, I'd have no objection to using
Logback as the foundation for 2.0 if we could. You've made it clear
you are not interested in that. That is disappointing to me but such
is life.
I ha
Ceki Gulcu skrev den 04-12-2008 21:33:
Curt has plainly expressed his feelings. What do others think?
I think that the slf4j approach is the right way to select the logging
framework, and it is the only implementation of this approach I am aware
of. My personal "Best Practice" list has "use
Curt Arnold skrev den 04-12-2008 20:34:
As far as I can tell, there is no significant practical advantage to
our user community to do a direct implementation of SLF4J in log4j
over the facade implementation provided by slf4j.org. I have never
seen a significant performance difference betwee
Curt Arnold wrote:
As far as I can tell, there is no significant practical advantage to our
user community to do a direct implementation of SLF4J in log4j over the
facade implementation provided by slf4j.org. I have never seen a
significant performance difference between the two approaches
