[logging] logging vs slf4j

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
74 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[logging] logging vs slf4j

Simone Tripodi-2
Hi all guys,
I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
[logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Henri Yandell
Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all guys,
> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Simone Tripodi-2
hahahaha :D

I asked because there's one user that proposed a [chain] evolution,
and one of suggested improvements is migrating over slf4j - I
(wrongly, maybe) suggested  to keep [logging] because here at commons
we continue using it but, as said, I maybe reported a wrong fact.

Do we encourage such kind of migrations or we are more conservative?
Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Christian Grobmeier
In reply to this post by Simone Tripodi-2
Hi

guess you were looking for this discussion:
http://bit.ly/qWAmvZ

(you need to read the follow up mails)

Cheers,
Christian

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all guys,
> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



--
http://www.grobmeier.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Phil Steitz
On 7/28/11 1:08 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi
>
> guess you were looking for this discussion:
> http://bit.ly/qWAmvZ
>
> (you need to read the follow up mails)

Not too obviously to avoid re-opening this discussion - you should
take a careful look at whether or not [chain] needs to do logging at
all.  

Phil

>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Simone Tripodi-2
In reply to this post by Christian Grobmeier
Thanks Christian,
at least the proof I am not crazy!!! :D
Dankeshen!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> guess you were looking for this discussion:
> http://bit.ly/qWAmvZ
>
> (you need to read the follow up mails)
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Simone Tripodi-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Hi Phil,
I'll have a look at it, of course, at least before any patch will be applied.
Thanks for the reminder, have a nice day!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/28/11 1:08 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> guess you were looking for this discussion:
>> http://bit.ly/qWAmvZ
>>
>> (you need to read the follow up mails)
>
> Not too obviously to avoid re-opening this discussion - you should
> take a careful look at whether or not [chain] needs to do logging at
> all.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or
>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.

Ralph

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/


On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

garydgregory
Great news Ralph. I look forward to the new version.

Gary

On Jul 28, 2011, at 20:26, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>
> Ralph
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Paul Benedict
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Good deal Ralph! Didn't the creator of Log4j abandon the 1.2/1.3
branch to make SLF4J? Anyways, I have no idea why all the creativity
for logging went outside of Apache, but I would definitely like to see
a version 2.0.

You taking feature requests yet in JIRA? :-)

Paul

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>
> Ralph
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Ralph Goers
Yes, Ceki created SLF4J and Logback based on his experience with 1.2 and 1.3.  The logging community is pretty small and really could use more people involved. I've had quite a bit of experience with logging for my employer as our needs are a bit different than what most people use a logging framework for. As a consequence, one of my primary focuses has been to make sure those use cases are supported, in addition to what SLF4J, Logback and Log4j do.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2 is where all the feature requests currently reside. Log4j 1.x is in bugzilla.

Ralph


On Jul 28, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:

> Good deal Ralph! Didn't the creator of Log4j abandon the 1.2/1.3
> branch to make SLF4J? Anyways, I have no idea why all the creativity
> for logging went outside of Apache, but I would definitely like to see
> a version 2.0.
>
> You taking feature requests yet in JIRA? :-)
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Random input. Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
excellent and not trying to create yet.another.facade. ie) Don't
compete with SLF4J, compete with Logback (given its licensing).

Hen

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>
> Ralph
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Ralph Goers
I would have done that but some of the deficiencies are in the API and I couldn't get Ceki to incorporate them. Unfortunately, SLF4J and Logback are run under the BDFL model, not a collaboration as is done at the ASF.

Ralph

On Jul 28, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> Random input. Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
> excellent and not trying to create yet.another.facade. ie) Don't
> compete with SLF4J, compete with Logback (given its licensing).
>
> Hen
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
Oh - I should have also mentioned that I implemented support for the SLF4J API and commons logging as well as the new Log4J API.

Ralph

On Jul 28, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> Random input. Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
> excellent and not trying to create yet.another.facade. ie) Don't
> compete with SLF4J, compete with Logback (given its licensing).
>
> Hen
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Simone Tripodi-2
great news Ralph, and kudos for your hard work!
looking forward to hear more from log4j soon!
have a nice day, all the best,
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Oh - I should have also mentioned that I implemented support for the SLF4J API and commons logging as well as the new Log4J API.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Random input. Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
>> excellent and not trying to create yet.another.facade. ie) Don't
>> compete with SLF4J, compete with Logback (given its licensing).
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> FWIW, I have been working heavily on Log4J version 2 and would hope you'd help with that before going to SLF4J [1]. I have separated the API and Impl in a manner similar to SLF4J/Logback but am working to correct some problems I've encountered using each of those where I work.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/branches/BRANCH_2_0_EXPERIMENTAL/rgoers/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>>> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons orI
>>>>> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding
>>>>> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j...
>>>>> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :)
>>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!!
>>>>> Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Torsten Curdt-3
At some stage I started to refactor commons logging into a multi
module maven project and got rid of the discovery part. So you would
have the commons-logging-api jar plus exactly one of the
implementation bridges. So you pick the logging target by putting the
correct bridge into your classpath. Similar to slf4j.

Didn't think there is still interest in commons logging. Not sure I
still have the code. I lost interest after yet another logging
discussion :) ...but it shouldn't be hard to re-create. Not sure there
is still enough interest in this.

>>> Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
>>> excellent

That sounds like work ;)

> Unfortunately, SLF4J and Logback are run under the BDFL model, not a collaboration as is done at the ASF.

Which is one of the reasons I have always been very reluctant to use it.

cheers,
Torsten

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Christian Grobmeier
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Torsten Curdt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At some stage I started to refactor commons logging into a multi
> module maven project and got rid of the discovery part. So you would
> have the commons-logging-api jar plus exactly one of the
> implementation bridges. So you pick the logging target by putting the
> correct bridge into your classpath. Similar to slf4j.
>
> Didn't think there is still interest in commons logging. Not sure I
> still have the code. I lost interest after yet another logging
> discussion :) ...but it shouldn't be hard to re-create. Not sure there
> is still enough interest in this.

To be honest, I would love to see this. I like log4j/commons-logging
very much, but there has been decreasing development effort the past
years and slf4j/logback grew strong. Finally I though at least
commons-logging is dead.

I prefer asf libs, and so I would love to see your changes. This
surely would help to revive the loggings project, which already is
resurrecting due to Ralphs efforts with Log4j 2.

So my interest is here, but I am not sure if I have enough time left
to give the support it deserves :-)

Cheers
Christian

>>>> Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
>>>> excellent
>
> That sounds like work ;)
>
>> Unfortunately, SLF4J and Logback are run under the BDFL model, not a collaboration as is done at the ASF.
>
> Which is one of the reasons I have always been very reluctant to use it.
>
> cheers,
> Torsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



--
http://www.grobmeier.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
Hello.

> I would have done that but some of the deficiencies are in the API and I couldn't get Ceki to incorporate them.

Do you have a pointer to a listing of those deficiencies?

> [...]


Thanks,
Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Paul Benedict
Would there be any merit in combining the log4j and commons logging
code? Given a hypothetical Log4j 2 and JCL 2, how much different could
they really be in terms of their goals and add-ins?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Gilles Sadowski
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello.
>
>> I would have done that but some of the deficiencies are in the API and I couldn't get Ceki to incorporate them.
>
> Do you have a pointer to a listing of those deficiencies?
>
>> [...]
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-3
One thing that is a hassle to me with modularized projects, even
slf4j, is that you end up with a bunch of tiny jars. IOW & IMO: a
mess. Personally, I want one jar to rule them all. If I want to switch
logging implementer or a client wants another impl I have to fiddle
with my builds and explain what each jar does. It's a hassle.

Gary

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Torsten Curdt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At some stage I started to refactor commons logging into a multi
> module maven project and got rid of the discovery part. So you would
> have the commons-logging-api jar plus exactly one of the
> implementation bridges. So you pick the logging target by putting the
> correct bridge into your classpath. Similar to slf4j.
>
> Didn't think there is still interest in commons logging. Not sure I
> still have the code. I lost interest after yet another logging
> discussion :) ...but it shouldn't be hard to re-create. Not sure there
> is still enough interest in this.
>
>>>> Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
>>>> excellent
>
> That sounds like work ;)
>
>> Unfortunately, SLF4J and Logback are run under the BDFL model, not a collaboration as is done at the ASF.
>
> Which is one of the reasons I have always been very reluctant to use it.
>
> cheers,
> Torsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



--
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

1234