[slf4j-dev] what are we here for?

[robert burrell donkin]

the JCL proposal document has proved pretty successful over the years. i
have a few suggestions arising from that.

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.  

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. 

or maybe we think a little wider...

- robert

On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 19:38 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> OK. Here is a shot. (An adaptation of the slf4j.org welcome page)
> 
> Mission:
> 
>   The mission of the Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) project
>   is to provide a facade for various logging APIs allowing the
>   end-user to plug in the desired implementation at deployment time.
> 
> Notice that I have removed the word simple. So instead of "to provide
> a *simple* facade for", the above paragraph reads "to provide a facade
> for..."
> 
> IMO, the adjectives "simple" and "reliable" are two good candidates for
> the requirements part.
> 
> At 19:28 5/1/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >but mission+requirements+specification seems a reasonable way to break
> >things down (to me) and talking about a mission would probably be a very
> >suitable place for everyone to start. (it also happily coincides with
> >the question in the subject of this email and so no thread renaming
> >would be require.)