[Logging] was Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Matt Benson wrote:

>
> Is there any point in turning [logging] into me-too-slf4j?  If we  
> can agree that slf4j's API is preferable to that of [logging] in its  
> current form, why don't we EOL [logging] and bless the compatibly- 
> licensed slf4j for future development?  No slight to those who have  
> worked on [logging] in the past, but if their interests have moved  
> on while Ceki continues to focus on  logging, why not simply leave  
> the domain to him?  There is an established path for interop, so  
> this shouldn't keep anybody up at night IMHO.  If we were interested  
> in having [logging]'s API differ significantly from that of slf4j  
> it'd be a different story, but this simply sounds like NIH, which is  
> not what I think the ASF is about.


Obviously, I don't have too many technical issues with using SLF4J or  
I wouldn't have suggested it. Here are some random thoughts.
1. Ceki has been doing this for years and has learned an awful lot  
about logging.
2. The development community around SLF4J is fairly small - but it is  
probably larger and more active than that around commons-logging.
3. Ceki maintains fairly close control over SLF4J and Logback. I have  
commit rights to slf4j-ext and the web site but not the core. I'm not  
sure who besides Ceki does.
4. Even though he maintains close control, Ceki is fairly open to  
suggestions. The only 'troubles' I've experienced have been when he  
has been unavailable.
5. I've asked Ceki about bringing SLF4J and/or Logback to Apache. He  
seems quite happy with the way things are.

All that really doesn't say much. The primary difference is simply  
around how the community is run. I don't see any danger that the SLF4J  
community is going to die any time soon, so I don't think we should  
really care that it isn't run exactly like an Apache project. As you  
pointed out, the license is compatible and other Apache projects are  
already using it.

The real question is, if one was to create a commons logging 2.0 what  
would it be and would that be a significant improvement over SLF4J and  
the existing commons logging?

Ralph

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [Logging] was Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:41 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>
>
> I (might still) have some (very) experimental code. But the
> "significant improvement over SLF4J" might be debatable ...and I am
> done debating about logging ;-)
>
Whatever that experimental code is I'd love to see it. It might give  
me good ideas.

Ralph


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [Logging] was Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

> All that really doesn't say much.

IMO it does ;)

> The primary difference is simply around
> how the community is run.

Exactly

> The real question is, if one was to create a commons logging 2.0 what would
> it be and would that be a significant improvement over SLF4J and the
> existing commons logging?

I (might still) have some (very) experimental code. But the
"significant improvement over SLF4J" might be debatable ...and I am
done debating about logging ;-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org