scalax.logging

[Stepan Koltsov]

Hi, all.

I'd like to add scalax.logging package with

===
trait Logging {
  val logger = org.slf4j.LoggerFactory.getLogger(...)
}
===

Anybody agreed, disagreed with it?

S.

[Jamie Webb-2]

On 2008-05-22 01:24:20 Stepan Koltsov wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> I'd like to add scalax.logging package with
>
> ===
> trait Logging {
>   val logger = org.slf4j.LoggerFactory.getLogger(...)
> }
> ===
>
> Anybody agreed, disagreed with it?

Sorry for the delay. Seems reasonable. But, please ensure that the
Maven build is not broken.

Cheers

/J

[Stepan Koltsov]

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Jamie Webb <j@...> wrote:
>> I'd like to add scalax.logging package with
>>
>> Anybody agreed, disagreed with it?
>
> Sorry for the delay. Seems reasonable. But, please ensure that the
> Maven build is not broken.

Maven build is not broken, but build.xml now contains a hack -- path
to slf4j-api jar is ~/.m2/repository/...

Don't know how to get jar properly. Probably "Ant Tasks for Maven"
should be used.

S.

[Andrew.Foggin]

Stepan Koltsov wrote:

> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Jamie Webb <j@...> wrote:
>  
>>> I'd like to add scalax.logging package with
>>>
>>> Anybody agreed, disagreed with it?
>>>      
>> Sorry for the delay. Seems reasonable. But, please ensure that the
>> Maven build is not broken.
>>    
>
> Maven build is not broken, but build.xml now contains a hack -- path
> to slf4j-api jar is ~/.m2/repository/...
>
> Don't know how to get jar properly. Probably "Ant Tasks for Maven"
> should be used.
>
> S.
>
>
>  

I'm just catching up on a big backlog.  Is adding a dependency on slf4j
(or anything else outside core Java and Scala libraries) desirable?  I'm
not sure that it is.

Personally I'm not keen on the proliferation of logging apis.  
commons-logging is a pet hate of mine - although I haven't looked at
slf4j I'm assuming the intent is the same.

Regards,

Andrew Foggin

[Jamie Webb-2]

On 2008-05-26 20:36:52 Andrew Foggin wrote:
> I'm just catching up on a big backlog.  Is adding a dependency on
> slf4j (or anything else outside core Java and Scala libraries)
> desirable?  I'm not sure that it is.

I think that we certainly want to keep dependencies to a minimum. We
definitely should depend only on mature and well-known libraries. We
also need to ensure that (runtime) dependencies do not have licenses
more strict that our own. But I think that to avoid dependencies
completely is counter to the overall goal of being useful.

> Personally I'm not keen on the proliferation of logging apis.  
> commons-logging is a pet hate of mine - although I haven't looked at
> slf4j I'm assuming the intent is the same.

Pretty much. Essentially our problems are:
- We are going to want to do logging within Scalax
- Logging is exactly the sort of common need that Scalax seeks to
address.
- Writing yet another logging API just to avoid a dependency stinks.

Thanks to the utter incompetence of the JSR47 group, that avenue is not
an option. SLF4J is the successor to Log4j, and seems to be the best of
a bad bunch (more specifically, the combination of SLF4J with Logback
is the successor to Log4j, but SLF4J also supports other backends).

/J

[Stepan Koltsov]

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Foggin <andy@...> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to add scalax.logging package with
>
> I'm just catching up on a big backlog.  Is adding a dependency on slf4j (or
> anything else outside core Java and Scala libraries) desirable?  I'm not
> sure that it is.

only scalax.logging depends on slf4j, other packages can be used
without any dependencies.

S.

[Andrew.Foggin]

Jamie Webb wrote:

> On 2008-05-26 20:36:52 Andrew Foggin wrote:
>  
>> I'm just catching up on a big backlog.  Is adding a dependency on
>> slf4j (or anything else outside core Java and Scala libraries)
>> desirable?  I'm not sure that it is.
>>    
>
> I think that we certainly want to keep dependencies to a minimum. We
> definitely should depend only on mature and well-known libraries. We
> also need to ensure that (runtime) dependencies do not have licenses
> more strict that our own. But I think that to avoid dependencies
> completely is counter to the overall goal of being useful.
>
>  
>> Personally I'm not keen on the proliferation of logging apis.  
>> commons-logging is a pet hate of mine - although I haven't looked at
>> slf4j I'm assuming the intent is the same.
>>    
>
> Pretty much. Essentially our problems are:
> - We are going to want to do logging within Scalax
> - Logging is exactly the sort of common need that Scalax seeks to
> address.
> - Writing yet another logging API just to avoid a dependency stinks.
>
> Thanks to the utter incompetence of the JSR47 group, that avenue is not
> an option. SLF4J is the successor to Log4j, and seems to be the best of
> a bad bunch (more specifically, the combination of SLF4J with Logback
> is the successor to Log4j, but SLF4J also supports other backends).
>
> /J
>
>
>  

Fair enough.  Not so long ago I'd have fought the idea tooth-and-nail
(same goes for Maven) but I can see why people might want this and there
are far more important battles to fight ;-)

--Andrew (trying to decide if he has gained wisdom or lost passion)