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.com>wrote: > 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 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 today, I would be strongly in favor of using > > SL4J as the logging mechanism. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew <ertio...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> 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 currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during > >>> development, and incurring the performance hits. > >>> > >>> Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for > >>> production. > >>> > >>> How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the > >>> discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or > >>> JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. > >>> > >>> Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the > >>> theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality > >>> of using it? > >>> > >>> slf4j and myfaces > >>> > >>> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >>> > >>> [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging > >>> > >>> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >>> > >>> [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 > >>> > >>> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378 > >>> >
