cayenne logging

[Juan José Gil <ma...@gmail.com>]

Is there any plan to use slf4j instead of commons-logging with cayenne?

If you need someone who do the nasty work, I would be glad to contribute a
patch :)

Re: cayenne logging

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

I suspect it may perform slightly better to not using the JCL to SLF
bridge, so that's a good reason to switch.

But as long as Cayenne depends on other libraries that use
commons-logging, then all we really do is make things more complicated
for end users.    Right now you can use commons-logging.  Or you can
use SLF with the commons-logging bridge.   If we switch Cayenne to use
SLF, then we force users to have to configure for both.

Ideally, we'd try to convince our dependencies to use SLF as well.   I
don't remember which ones use commons-logging, so I don't know how
hard it would be to sell it.




On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> In my own environment SLF is becoming more and more common. If that is the case with everyone else, this would mean that using SLF would mean fewer hoops to jump for the majority of users. So I wouldn't mind if we switch. But since there are ways to bridge from JCL to SLF, as well as from SLF to JCL, theoretically both loggers should work the same everywhere. So maybe the solution lies in documenting jcl-over-slf4j.jar bridge in our docs?
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My guess would be no, but others may have a different opinion.   Our
>> dependencies use commons-logging.
>>
>> But the nice thing about the commons-logging api is that you can
>> trivially replace the commons-logging jar files with
>> jcl-over-slf4j.jar.
>>
>> I do this now in one of my projects.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Juan José Gil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there any plan to use slf4j instead of commons-logging with cayenne?
>>>
>>> If you need someone who do the nasty work, I would be glad to contribute a
>>> patch :)
>>
>

Re: cayenne logging

[Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>]

In my own environment SLF is becoming more and more common. If that is the case with everyone else, this would mean that using SLF would mean fewer hoops to jump for the majority of users. So I wouldn't mind if we switch. But since there are ways to bridge from JCL to SLF, as well as from SLF to JCL, theoretically both loggers should work the same everywhere. So maybe the solution lies in documenting jcl-over-slf4j.jar bridge in our docs?

Andrus


On Apr 23, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My guess would be no, but others may have a different opinion.   Our
> dependencies use commons-logging.
> 
> But the nice thing about the commons-logging api is that you can
> trivially replace the commons-logging jar files with
> jcl-over-slf4j.jar.
> 
> I do this now in one of my projects.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Juan José Gil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there any plan to use slf4j instead of commons-logging with cayenne?
>> 
>> If you need someone who do the nasty work, I would be glad to contribute a
>> patch :)
> 

Re: cayenne logging

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

My guess would be no, but others may have a different opinion.   Our
dependencies use commons-logging.

But the nice thing about the commons-logging api is that you can
trivially replace the commons-logging jar files with
jcl-over-slf4j.jar.

I do this now in one of my projects.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Juan José Gil <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any plan to use slf4j instead of commons-logging with cayenne?
>
> If you need someone who do the nasty work, I would be glad to contribute a
> patch :)