You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Felix Knecht <fe...@otego.com> on 2010/05/26 17:41:28 UTC
log4j <-> slf4j
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
To me it looks like we're using 2 log frameworks: logj4 and slf4j. IMO
we should try to eliminate one of them and have a main one (for all the
projects maybe exept studio) - but which one?
WDYT?
Felix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkv9QSgACgkQ2lZVCB08qHHYXQCfdh+ng0y3CgazoDK2vh6ni7z7
GtsAn2nvp7HqZ/T62AVr0P2y/ACuuoqg
=OqeR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: log4j <-> slf4j
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/10 18:19, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 5/26/10 6:05 PM, Felix Knecht wrote:
>>
>> You're right, I overlooked it. But when performance is an issue why
>> using a facade?
>>
> Performance is not an issue at all here.
>
> Slf4j is just a faced, it carries no load. The big advantage is that we
> don't force users to use log4j if they are forced to use stuff like CLOG
> or even worse, JUL.
Thanks for explanation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkv9TaIACgkQ2lZVCB08qHHQlgCgjS6BC+kiouY6Ll10TtHU+tt7
NFoAoLGbJOPeKX2Kls/nIg7sM+jJWkAD
=W8Os
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: log4j <-> slf4j
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 5/26/10 6:05 PM, Felix Knecht wrote:
>
> You're right, I overlooked it. But when performance is an issue why
> using a facade?
>
Performance is not an issue at all here.
Slf4j is just a faced, it carries no load. The big advantage is that we
don't force users to use log4j if they are forced to use stuff like CLOG
or even worse, JUL.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: log4j <-> slf4j
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/10 17:57, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Felix Knecht <fe...@otego.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> To me it looks like we're using 2 log frameworks: logj4 and slf4j. IMO
>> we should try to eliminate one of them and have a main one (for all the
>> projects maybe exept studio) - but which one?
> slf4j is just a facade for various logging framework implementations.
> (no big deal, thought you might have overlooked)
You're right, I overlooked it. But when performance is an issue why
using a facade?
Felix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkv9RrsACgkQ2lZVCB08qHESMwCdHvVWRNhMb7JO8RaZemk/4aQ+
gyUAn0ZHiYTutHeUP3xZlqjf+CgGNcO+
=ABca
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: log4j <-> slf4j
Posted by Kiran Ayyagari <ka...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Felix Knecht <fe...@otego.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> To me it looks like we're using 2 log frameworks: logj4 and slf4j. IMO
> we should try to eliminate one of them and have a main one (for all the
> projects maybe exept studio) - but which one?
slf4j is just a facade for various logging framework implementations.
(no big deal, thought you might have overlooked)
Kiran Ayyagari