aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Nuttall <mnutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Aries JNDI dependencies
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:18:53 GMT
Hi David,

> Hmmm, I have to say that I don't really like message like: 'please
> revert your changes because our product does x, y or z'.

While that is not an unusual conversation on this list, I was in this case
responding to your note in this thread of Jan 16th in which you wrote,

>> I've done this now in commit 1232044. Hope that's ok with everyone. If
not I'm happy to revert...

I know that you wrote this two weeks ago, but I was hopeful that your offer
was still valid. I know that we didn't spot this at the time: we've had to
attempt to reconsume your changes in order to appreciate their impact. I
asked you to revert your changes because I believed that you had made an
offer to do so.

> * SLF4J brings in dependencies that not everybody may want. In our
> use-case in JBoss the SLF4J dep brings in at least 2 additional
> bundles, which is unnecessary as we already have our own logging
> system.

I understand that SLF4J brings in dependencies that you do not want, but it
also brings in the benefit of permitting us each to choose the logging
implementation behind it. Again, I may be wrong, but that flexibility seems
to have been removed from consumers of the JNDI module.

> * SLF4J may have been decided on in Feb 2010, but a vibrant project
> must show its agility to work in a number a settings. It's a good
> thing that Aries is now used in more and more settings, but this
> brings with it the notion of being able to accommodate.

If you want to reopen the discussion of how logging is done across Apache
Aries, then by all means let's have that discussion. The problem that we
have now is that anyone consuming more than just JNDI from Aries must deal
with two different logging technologies: the OSGi LoggingService for JNDI,
and SLF4J for everything else. We've previously agreed on this list that it
is desirable and appropriate for there to be one common logging approach
across all the Aries modules.

Again, I would still like to take you up on your offer on Jan 16th. Please,
can I ask you to restore SLF4J logging to JNDI while we reopen the
discussion of how logging is done across Aries? Thank you very much in
advance.

Regards,
Mark


On 31 January 2012 12:19, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Hmmm, I have to say that I don't really like message like: 'please
> revert your changes because our product does x, y or z'. Apache Aries
> is an opensource community that provides components that are used in
> more than one product, not only yours.
>
> I would prefer a more constructive approach where we can weigh the
> pros and cons of the various approaches.
>
> * SLF4J brings in dependencies that not everybody may want. In our
> use-case in JBoss the SLF4J dep brings in at least 2 additional
> bundles, which is unnecessary as we already have our own logging
> system.
> * SLF4J may have been decided on in Feb 2010, but a vibrant project
> must show its agility to work in a number a settings. It's a good
> thing that Aries is now used in more and more settings, but this
> brings with it the notion of being able to accommodate.
>
> So... I'm not entirely sure what the actual problem is with the
> LogService, you mention:
> * logging against specific classes
> * other behavioural changes (what are they?)
>
> Instead of simply going back to SLF4J, I would like to have a discussion
> about:
> * possible alternatives, can we maybe change how the LogService is
> used to accommodate your needs?
> * or we could look at other logging alternatives, java.util.logging
> comes to mind, since that can be configured to go to anything you like
> as well and has the advantage over SLF4J in that the dependencies are
> part of the JDK...
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 09:56, Mark Nuttall <mnuttall@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > We've started running into what are for us serious consequences of your
> > recent changes to JNDI. I'm sorry that it's taken us a few weeks to
> notice
> > this. When JNDI logged via the SLF4J API, we had a pluggable logging API
> > that allowed us to log to our product's standard infrastructure. In
> > removing SLF4J, your changes appear to have bound us
> > to org.osgi.service.log.LogService, which we do not want, removed
> important
> > logging capabilities, such as the ability to log against specific
> classes,
> > and made other unwanted bahevioural changes. This is a problematic
> > regression for us. Please can you revert JNDI to logging via the SLF4J
> API?
> > SLF4J has been the Apache Aries standard for logging since the "[DISCUSS]
> > Logging framework" thread in February 2010. Thank you very much in
> advance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On 17 January 2012 11:38, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 January 2012 15:54, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'll look at changing the SLF4J dependency to an OSGi Log Service
> >> > dependency next...
> >>
> >> That's done now too: see revision 1232390
> >> Hope this is ok with everyone...
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> David
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message