[slf4j-dev] Consolidating the LoggerFactory / A better plugin mechanism

[Eric Crahen]

I'm fine with it just picking the first one, but certainly when there is
more than one a very, very clear error message should be output that tells a
user exactly what is wrong and what to do.

On 2/16/07, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2/16/07, Eric Crahen <eric.crahen.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As I said, deploying the correct implementation jar IS a kind of
> > configuration, weather you call it that or not.
>
> Exactly, and I think this should be the *only* configuration SLF4J
> would ever need. Any solution that requires extra configuration
> properties or explicit precedence settings is IMHO too much.
>
> The fact that SLF4J always uses the implementation jar that is first
> available in the classloading hierarchy is simple and easy to
> understand. I don't see any good use cases that would require anything
> more complex.
>
> The ServiceFactory approach sounds like a good solution to the
> compile-time issues you mentioned earlier, but I think it should only
> be used to duplicate the current runtime behaviour without any extra
> configuration options or even the misconfiguration heuristics you
> suggested.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at slf4j.org
> http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>



-- 

- Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://qos.ch/pipermail/slf4j-dev/attachments/20070216/f6dcb8a1/attachment.htm>