Hi,
Think for everyday users (i'm part of them) it doesnt make so much
difference so since the logs are the same and the impl is easier logback
sounds good.
Le 11 déc. 2012 08:14, "Ansgar Konermann"
a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> please go for logback. I really wondered why slf4j was initially chosen at
>
Hi,
please go for logback. I really wondered why slf4j was initially chosen at
all, given logback is available and mature. We've been using logback at
work in production for quite some time now and are very pleased. So yes,
using logback in Maven is fine.
Regards
Ansgar
Am 11.12.2012 03:33 schri
If you could help me with surefire this week I would be /really/ happy
and promise to study your changes so I can do it for other projects
later ;)
Kristian
Den 11. des. 2012 kl. 00:23 skrev Olivier Lamy :
> I have updated documentation for publishing our main website
> http://maven.apache.org/d
Hi,
I looked around a bit more today and I don't think SLF4J Simple is viable long
term, I don't want to patch it anymore as I would have to do a day's work to
make changes that keep the performance levels up, get it reviewed and released,
and I honestly don't think it's worth it anymore. I wou
I have updated documentation for publishing our main website
http://maven.apache.org/developers/website/deploy-maven-website.html
(do not hesitate to fix typos or improve it).
And feel free to test it or write more documentation, that will be now
live in only few minutes :-).
We will start with He
Then I will just ask the committers to help choose an implementation. I'll send
out a separate thread.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As an Apache project, we are called upon to make our decisions (*) by
> an open, public, consensus process. Choosing a logging back end i
Github user agudian closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/14
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:46 PM, John Casey wrote:
> On 12/10/12 2:42 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> It would be the default backend, people would not be using Logback APIs
>> directly.
>>
>> The one place where it's convenient for use the use the Logback APIs is in
>> the CLI where it's not possibl
On 12/10/12 2:42 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
It would be the default backend, people would not be using Logback APIs
directly.
The one place where it's convenient for use the use the Logback APIs is in the
CLI where it's not possible to change the log levels without talking directly
to the imple
Looking at Drools Guvnor, it's ASL...as is the rest of Drools.
And I believe the code they were asking about was related to some new
features in Guvnor...
So, I guess I'm at a loss for what Mark's concern was. It's still an
issue for GPL projects, but I haven't had that come up yet.
Underst
It would be the default backend, people would not be using Logback APIs
directly.
The one place where it's convenient for use the use the Logback APIs is in the
CLI where it's not possible to change the log levels without talking directly
to the implementation.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Joh
Reading through the rest of the thread...is this for the default
implementation we'll ship with maven, or are we talking about skipping
the slf4j-api abstraction and using logback apis directly?
If it's just the default backend, I'm not concerned at all. If we're
forcing people to use logback,
On 12/10/12 2:25 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
John,
Eight other projects at Apache use Logback.
The whole of JBoss Tooling is EPL so Redhat doesn't appear to have any problems
with the EPL. I don't think JBoss would ship a huge product entirely based on
EPL if there were a problem.
Oracle also n
John,
Eight other projects at Apache use Logback.
The whole of JBoss Tooling is EPL so Redhat doesn't appear to have any problems
with the EPL. I don't think JBoss would ship a huge product entirely based on
EPL if there were a problem.
Oracle also now accepts EPL dependencies in their produc
On 12/9/12 7:50 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix for
the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency with
parallel builds and who knows what else. This will patch/change #5 and many
hours of trying to get
I don't think we're in any dire rush.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> I am on crutches (fractured two bones in my foot while running on wed) and
> away from my laptop. It will be tomorrow before I can try and dig this
> stuff out
>
> On Monday, 10 December 2012, Jason v
I am on crutches (fractured two bones in my foot while running on wed) and
away from my laptop. It will be tomorrow before I can try and dig this
stuff out
On Monday, 10 December 2012, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I'll make the example plugins and then we can try it. Do you have a little
> snippet as a
I cannot
content is here
https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/maven/content/
just need to be checkout a first time.
As some asked to have documentation for plugins for each version we
have a lot of content.
So need some time, so tea time for me.
2012/12/10 Jason van Zyl :
> Maybe
Maybe you can copy over the index.html we can prevent the directory listing
from showing up on our home page.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> http://markmail.org/message/mpgn4yshnt2qmdui
>
> 2012/12/10 Jason van Zyl :
>> Not sure what's happening but:
>>
>> http://maven.ap
http://markmail.org/message/mpgn4yshnt2qmdui
2012/12/10 Jason van Zyl :
> Not sure what's happening but:
>
> http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies.html
>
> is not there.
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> 2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY :
>>> Le dimanche 9 décembr
Not sure what's happening but:
http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies.html
is not there.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY :
>> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>> I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Si
The changes have only been in the simple logger implementation, not the api
itself.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> To be honest. Slf4J is really mature. The fact that we need some 'special
> treatment' for maven worries me.
> Are we are trying to do things with slf4j-simpl
Hi,
It's now live.
http://maven.apache.org is currently under first sync (this first one
can/will take a bit of time).
scp deployment won't work anymore now.
I will start documentation on how to use (you can read previously send links).
Note:
* you can still build main and doxia sites locally using
Curious...reading through all of this it seems there are two primary
situations in play I was wondering if the 'default' logging for console and
embedded need to be so strictly aligned and if you could not just also
publish an distribution or aggregation specifically for embedded that
contains a mo
Given the time of year, I think everyone's focus will be elsewhere and starting
vacations soon so I would rather just wait. I can't even do the minimal to use
SLF4J Simple until that patch is reviewed and absorbed if it is accepted at all
because. When I say inefficient it's on the order of brea
I'll make the example plugins and then we can try it. Do you have a little
snippet as an example?
On Dec 10, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
>> I just committed a starting point for MNG-5406: "don't expose core's
>> slf4j-api
>> b
sorry, you are right, should have been slf4j-simple, etc.
- Original Message -
> From: Anders Hammar
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Logging
>
>> Another thing to remember is that logback is a LocationAwareLogger afaik
>>
> In this context we could push the slf4j introduction to a "3.1" branch
> and release 3.0.5 now.
>
I'm -1 on that. I think the new architectural changes (injection and slf4j)
makes a good package for v3.1. Introducing injections and bug fixes in
3.0.5 should probably argue for a 3.0.6 release for
Jason,
I fully appreciate that we've reach the end of what slf4j-simple can, and
should, do. I'm just saying that I would have preferred us to use
slf4j-simple for the first release. But you, and a few others, are doing
the work and should decide. I'm just expression a by-stander's thoughts.
Howe
> Another thing to remember is that logback is a LocationAwareLogger afaik
> (log4j-simple is not!) thus it suffers from the API compat problem.
> By exposing it in the maven core class realm we might trash all projects
> with slf4j < 1.6. This even got acknowledged by Ceki...
> This was the reason
On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I just committed a starting point for MNG-5406: "don't expose core's
> slf4j-api
> > by default, add a plugin-descriptor option to expose"
> >
> > this is a new field in plugin descri
On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I just committed a starting point for MNG-5406: "don't expose core's
> slf4j-api
> by default, add a plugin-descriptor option to expose"
>
> this is a new field in plugin descriptor.
>
> I still don't know how to effectively use it in
> DefaultCla
To be honest. Slf4J is really mature. The fact that we need some 'special
treatment' for maven worries me.
Are we are trying to do things with slf4j-simple it never was intended for?
Again: I think sjf4j is really mature, so I guess the error is on our side.
And you also mentioned that Ceki did s
>The cycle for 3.1.0 is the cycle that should be happening to prevent
> something we're not happy with from being released. Unlike, say, the
compiler plugin
> which was actually released without much review only for Dan to discover
> after the fact it doesn't work as advertised[1].
Well, th
+1
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Kristian Rosenvold
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Logging
>
> As for options; there is also the option of accepting that the
> technical challenges were slightly larger than a
Another thing to remember is that logback is a LocationAwareLogger afaik
(log4j-simple is not!) thus it suffers from the API compat problem.
By exposing it in the maven core class realm we might trash all projects with
slf4j < 1.6. This even got acknowledged by Ceki...
This was the reason why we
2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY :
> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>> I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix
>> for the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency
>> with parallel builds and who knows what else. This
37 matches
Mail list logo
