You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> on 2021/01/23 20:38:59 UTC
Re: Logging
Hi Devs,
As POI 5.0.0 is out and Marius is now a committer (*hint* ;) ), I think the logging topic can be discussed again.
So do we want ...
a) to keep SLF4J
b) or replace it with Log4j 2
c) or any other logging api
... and ...
d) to keep the POILogger class/facade
e) or directly call the Logging API
As we have now some time until 5.0.1, I would vote for b) + e). I can also do the replacement if no-one else dares too.
What's your stance?
Are dependency changes like this a major (semver) version change?
Andi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: Logging
Posted by Marius Volkhart <Ma...@volkhart.com>.
+1 for b + e
+1 for logging changes not holding up 5.0.1
I'll happily do the work, including appropriate changes to the docs on the
website.
--
Cheers,
Marius Volkhart
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:21 AM Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 for a 5.0.1 first, there were already a few useful fixes which we could
> pack into a small bugfix release along with fixes for the "known issues" in
> 5.0.0.
>
> On the actual framework to use I don't have a preference, I seem to end up
> with at least 3 different ones in any project as soon as more than a few
> dependencies are dragged in, so trying to stick to one never really works
> anyway.
>
> Dominik.
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:11 PM PJ Fanning <fa...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > If we change the logging to log4j2 then I think we should at least bump
> > the POI version to 5.1.0.
> >
> > I would prefer to see a 5.0.1 release before we make the logging change -
> > since we raised awareness of a known issue in the release notes.
> >
> > I would like to see POILogger removed. I dislike having to use a system
> > property to override the default POILogger implementation (NullLogger).
> >
> > In the past, I'd have preferred slf4j because it gives users more control
> > as to what logging implementation to use but slf4j doesn't seem to be as
> > actively maintained as it once was.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Saturday 23 January 2021, 20:39:04 GMT, Andreas Beeker <
> > kiwiwings@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > As POI 5.0.0 is out and Marius is now a committer (*hint* ;) ), I think
> > the logging topic can be discussed again.
> >
> > So do we want ...
> > a) to keep SLF4J
> > b) or replace it with Log4j 2
> > c) or any other logging api
> >
> > ... and ...
> > d) to keep the POILogger class/facade
> > e) or directly call the Logging API
> >
> > As we have now some time until 5.0.1, I would vote for b) + e). I can
> also
> > do the replacement if no-one else dares too.
> >
> > What's your stance?
> >
> > Are dependency changes like this a major (semver) version change?
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Logging
Posted by Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ <ab...@for-scala.it>.
Hi,
+1 for a 5.0.1 before the switch to Log4j, removing the POILogger from the code base
Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ
Obter o BlueMail para Android
Em 25 de jan de 2021 08:21, em 08:21, Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at> escreveu:
>Hi,
>
>+1 for a 5.0.1 first, there were already a few useful fixes which we
>could
>pack into a small bugfix release along with fixes for the "known
>issues" in
>5.0.0.
>
>On the actual framework to use I don't have a preference, I seem to end
>up
>with at least 3 different ones in any project as soon as more than a
>few
>dependencies are dragged in, so trying to stick to one never really
>works
>anyway.
>
>Dominik.
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:11 PM PJ Fanning
><fa...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> If we change the logging to log4j2 then I think we should at least
>bump
>> the POI version to 5.1.0.
>>
>> I would prefer to see a 5.0.1 release before we make the logging
>change -
>> since we raised awareness of a known issue in the release notes.
>>
>> I would like to see POILogger removed. I dislike having to use a
>system
>> property to override the default POILogger implementation
>(NullLogger).
>>
>> In the past, I'd have preferred slf4j because it gives users more
>control
>> as to what logging implementation to use but slf4j doesn't seem to be
>as
>> actively maintained as it once was.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 23 January 2021, 20:39:04 GMT, Andreas Beeker <
>> kiwiwings@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> As POI 5.0.0 is out and Marius is now a committer (*hint* ;) ), I
>think
>> the logging topic can be discussed again.
>>
>> So do we want ...
>> a) to keep SLF4J
>> b) or replace it with Log4j 2
>> c) or any other logging api
>>
>> ... and ...
>> d) to keep the POILogger class/facade
>> e) or directly call the Logging API
>>
>> As we have now some time until 5.0.1, I would vote for b) + e). I can
>also
>> do the replacement if no-one else dares too.
>>
>> What's your stance?
>>
>> Are dependency changes like this a major (semver) version change?
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: Logging
Posted by Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at>.
Hi,
+1 for a 5.0.1 first, there were already a few useful fixes which we could
pack into a small bugfix release along with fixes for the "known issues" in
5.0.0.
On the actual framework to use I don't have a preference, I seem to end up
with at least 3 different ones in any project as soon as more than a few
dependencies are dragged in, so trying to stick to one never really works
anyway.
Dominik.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:11 PM PJ Fanning <fa...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> If we change the logging to log4j2 then I think we should at least bump
> the POI version to 5.1.0.
>
> I would prefer to see a 5.0.1 release before we make the logging change -
> since we raised awareness of a known issue in the release notes.
>
> I would like to see POILogger removed. I dislike having to use a system
> property to override the default POILogger implementation (NullLogger).
>
> In the past, I'd have preferred slf4j because it gives users more control
> as to what logging implementation to use but slf4j doesn't seem to be as
> actively maintained as it once was.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday 23 January 2021, 20:39:04 GMT, Andreas Beeker <
> kiwiwings@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Devs,
>
> As POI 5.0.0 is out and Marius is now a committer (*hint* ;) ), I think
> the logging topic can be discussed again.
>
> So do we want ...
> a) to keep SLF4J
> b) or replace it with Log4j 2
> c) or any other logging api
>
> ... and ...
> d) to keep the POILogger class/facade
> e) or directly call the Logging API
>
> As we have now some time until 5.0.1, I would vote for b) + e). I can also
> do the replacement if no-one else dares too.
>
> What's your stance?
>
> Are dependency changes like this a major (semver) version change?
>
> Andi
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>
Re: Logging
Posted by PJ Fanning <fa...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
If we change the logging to log4j2 then I think we should at least bump the POI version to 5.1.0.
I would prefer to see a 5.0.1 release before we make the logging change - since we raised awareness of a known issue in the release notes.
I would like to see POILogger removed. I dislike having to use a system property to override the default POILogger implementation (NullLogger).
In the past, I'd have preferred slf4j because it gives users more control as to what logging implementation to use but slf4j doesn't seem to be as actively maintained as it once was.
On Saturday 23 January 2021, 20:39:04 GMT, Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Devs,
As POI 5.0.0 is out and Marius is now a committer (*hint* ;) ), I think the logging topic can be discussed again.
So do we want ...
a) to keep SLF4J
b) or replace it with Log4j 2
c) or any other logging api
... and ...
d) to keep the POILogger class/facade
e) or directly call the Logging API
As we have now some time until 5.0.1, I would vote for b) + e). I can also do the replacement if no-one else dares too.
What's your stance?
Are dependency changes like this a major (semver) version change?
Andi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org