Hi Eric, I pulled out the slf4j dependency in protocols as its really sexy to have zero dependencies in the API. We even only used the Logger interface which made it even more clear to me that we should use our own logger interface.
Our implementations and so consumer of the API will still use slf4j. We did the same in jSPF. Hope it helps, Norman Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 30.12.2011 um 20:48 schrieb Eric Charles <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I noticed: > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-1149 (Replace commons-logging > with jcl-over-slf4j) > - and recent https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTOCOLS-76 (Remove > dependency on slf4j) > > I commented on the PROTOCOLS-76 about the incompatible types which makes the > integration of our different project more complicated (incompatible logger > types in constructor,...). > > One option is to standardize for all project to one of the following: > 1.- slf4j > 2.- java.util.Logger > 3.- commons-logging > 4.- Our own implementation > 5.- ... > > I don't have any strong preference for any, but the trend I see in some (not > all) other projects is slf4j. > If we go this way, this will give us probably less work to integrate > server-trunk with protocols-trunk. > > ...or let each project decide, which will be hell. > > WDYT? > -- > eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
