[slf4j-dev] what are we here for?

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 20:52 5/1/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>the JCL proposal document has proved pretty successful over the years. i
>have a few suggestions arising from that.

The JCL proposal document. Any quick link?

>i think that the word 'thin' is important. it's also important to
>emphasis that provision of logging system functionality is an anti-goal
>as is defining some sort of common configuration system for logging
>systems. these have saved a lot of hassle over the years.

Yah, that much is pretty clear at this stage. Having said that, one day in 
the future, we might have a situation where different framework 
implementors come to us and say, we agree on such and such interface for 
configuration, can you accommodate us? I don't think we will close the door 
to their faces. But again, that day may never come.

>i been pondering whether we might actually be better concentrating on
>defining rather than providing. it may be possible to use take the
>static binding strategy even further and define nothing but the kernel
>API.

Are you suggesting of providing something like a ULogger [1] interface and 
nothing else?

[1] http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/ULogger.html

>- robert

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/