[slf4j-dev] [POLL] ULogger renamed as Logger?

[Andy McBride]

I'm +1 to the rename as the 'U' didn’t really mean much in terms of a
generic interface name.  

Although it seems you may have forgot to commit the Logger.java to svn?

Regards

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev-bounces at slf4j.org [mailto:dev-bounces at slf4j.org] On Behalf Of
> Ceki Gülcü
> Sent: 15 May 2005 15:55
> To: dev at slf4j.org
> Subject: [slf4j-dev] [POLL] ULogger renamed as Logger?
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I just committed in a version of SLF4J and NLOG4J where the
> org.slf4j.ULogger interface was renamed as org.slf4j.Logger. This
> change follows complaints by some users that the term ULogger was
> strange and unfamiliar.
> 
> Advantages of the change:
> 
> 1) Logger is a familiar name while ULogger is not.
> 
> Disadvantages of the change:
> 
> 1) As any change, this change will impact dependants and will imply
> some work downstream.
> 
> 2) In the Java language, you can't import the same class in a given
> source file. In particular, implementations of the Logger interface,
> say org.apache.log4j.Logger, will need to refer explicitly refer to
> org.slf4j.Logger instead of importing org.slf4j.Ulogger and referring
> to it as ULogger.
> 
> Given that the change impacts mostly Logger implementations, I think
> it's something we can live with. Moreover, since there are few users
> of SLF4J, the change not impact more than a few people.
> 
> Opinions, comments?
> 
> 
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
> 
>    The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at slf4j.org
> http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev