On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I would rather we eat our own dog food with log4j or commons logging.
As classscan is in sandbox... I think it would help the logging team
if we would try log4j 2.0 alpha. It is a great framework already and
logging-people could learn about pr
I would rather we eat our own dog food with log4j or commons logging.
Gary
On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:42, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Well, you might want the logging to be silent during normal testing but to be
> enabled if problems arise.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>>
Well, you might want the logging to be silent during normal testing but to be
enabled if problems arise.
Ralph
On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Can anyone provide a reason [classscan] should not simply use
> slf4j-simple in the test scope rather than logback? It's a small
> cha
Can anyone provide a reason [classscan] should not simply use
slf4j-simple in the test scope rather than logback? It's a small
change, but any reduction in complexity...
Matt
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apa
