james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Charles <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Logging library in our projects
Date Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:35:26 GMT
Hello Norman,

Yes, I can understand this.

So, how are we gonna create a POP3Protocol(ProtocolHandlerChain, 
ProtocolConfiguration, Logger) from server which uses slf4j?

We need to give as third parameter a org.apache.james.protocols.api.Logger.

An adapter between org.slf4j.Logger and 
org.apache.james.protocols.api.Logger could do the job, even if find 
this a bit overhead.

When integrating server and protocols trunk a few days before, I thus 
though to these 2 options:
1.- the adapter.
2.- the uniformisation between all projects.

but didn't know where to go..., this is the reason for this thread :)
Maybe you have a third option in mind such as having two completely 
separated logging mechanism when running protocols in server?

Thx,

Eric


On 30/12/11 21:25, Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I pulled out the slf4j dependency in protocols as its really sexy to have zero dependencies
in the API. We even only used the Logger interface which made it even more clear to me that
we should use our own logger interface.
>
> Our implementations and so consumer of the API will still use slf4j.
>
> We did the same in jSPF.
>
> Hope it helps,
> Norman
>
> Von meinem  iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 30.12.2011 um 20:48 schrieb Eric Charles<eric@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed:
>>
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-1149 (Replace commons-logging with
jcl-over-slf4j)
>> - and recent https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTOCOLS-76 (Remove dependency
on slf4j)
>>
>> I commented on the PROTOCOLS-76 about the incompatible types which makes the integration
of our different project more complicated (incompatible logger types in constructor,...).
>>
>> One option is to standardize for all project to one of the following:
>> 1.- slf4j
>> 2.- java.util.Logger
>> 3.- commons-logging
>> 4.- Our own implementation
>> 5.- ...
>>
>> I don't have any strong preference for any, but the trend I see in some (not all)
other projects is slf4j.
>> If we go this way, this will give us probably less work to integrate server-trunk
with protocols-trunk.
>>
>> ...or let each project decide, which will be hell.
>>
>> WDYT?
>> --
>> eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>

-- 
eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles

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


Mime
View raw message