Just a minor sidequestion, why do you use the SLF4JBridgeHandler JUL
layer instead of JUL directly?
Werner
Am 23.08.12 16:40, schrieb Mike Kienenberger:
Did you ever say something you really regretted?
I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the
logging vote two
I back then voted for JUL mainly because I felt that one dependency less
is always a good thing for the core lib and jul seemed like a good
choice given that it is part of the core lib.
Werner
Am 23.08.12 20:38, schrieb Ertio Lew:
Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your
1) Because I already have logging configured using log4j, and I have
dependencies on JCL and log4j and slf4j from other libraries.
2) Because there is no easy way to configure logging from the classpath.
3) Because the default output of JUL is two lines instead of one.
Also, some other issues:
There's definitely value limiting dependencies. But there's also the
reality that even though MyFaces code doesn't directly use JCL, its
dependencies do, so you have to have it anyway.
The SL4J library can emulate the JCL interface, so here's a way to
support SL4J without adding a dependency
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
There's definitely value limiting dependencies. But there's also the
reality that even though MyFaces code doesn't directly use JCL, its
dependencies do, so you have to have it anyway.
The SL4J library can emulate
There still may be some value in not introducing dependencies in the
case of projects that implement Java EE specifications. Has anyone
verified whether
http://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html#LevelChangePropagator
improves JUL performance as advertised?
Matt
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at
Did you ever say something you really regretted?
I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the
logging vote two years back[1].
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E
I am
Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging
SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or
otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?!
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote:
Did
When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really
understand the need.
Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that
reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense. SL4J was new, and
I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it.
If we were to vote again
Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do
everything SL4J claimed to do. But as I stated earlier, the
theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real
use conditions.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
When we
Yes, things change with time may be it didn't mattered too much that time
but today SL4J is the need as it is widely adopted now.
So +1 for SL4J !
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do
11 matches
Mail list logo
