On 27 Apr 2009, at 21:32, Frédéric Camblor wrote:
This is only a point of view but...
Isn't the problem coming from the slf4f framework ?
I don't really know this logging framework, but it astonishes me
that it
complains about multiple configuration in the classpath.
Generally, framework takes (like commons-logging or log4j) the first
config
file found in the classpath so that responsibility is delegated to
the order
in which you put artefacts in your <dependencies> section.
Have you searched in slf4j if it isn't possible to "disable" this
"complaining" ?
That's the whole point of the slf4j. You nail down the implementation
you want by specifying it up-front. It seems to be a reaction against
the commons-logging façade.
http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#yet_another_facade
Don't ask me much more, as I just use log4j. :)
-Dom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
