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 the JCL interface, so here's a way to > support SL4J without adding a dependency for it, if a dependency is > the real concern. I have to have that emulation jar in my classpath > in any case for the other JCL producers. > > Using logback isn't an option for me. I've read the docs, and it > seems like LevelChangePropagator would do what was advertised. I > doubt the claim would be made if it were not true.
Right, I didn't catch that this was a logback-specific approach. I guess that a similar approach could be taken for any of the other bridging approaches. I wonder what, if anything, log4j2 is doing wrt bridging APIs... Matt > > I'm surprised no other JSF 2 users have commented on how they handle > the JUL logging dependency. > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 2:02 PM, Ertio Lew <ertio...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>>>
