We've spent quite a bit of time eliminating SLF4J from various dependencies, so we're reluctant to bring it back, especially for such a trivial usage. Using java.util.logging or a pluggable interface would be much preferred.
electrum
All 3 comments
SLF4J is the de facto logger for open source Java.
Speaking personally, I'll need to see a very persuasive argument to justify switching away from it--_especially_ to switch to JUL.
qualidafial
on 27 Jun 2017
Hm, I'd been planning to expand use of slf4j (almost exclusively at TRACE level) to make it easier to see what's going on under the hood.
My understanding is that j.u.l is considered inferior in many ways and most of the advice I've seen says to stay away from it.
What's wrong with slf4j? If you really don't want it you can bridge it to jul or even just the nop logger.
stevenschlansker
on 27 Jun 2017
A "pluggable interface" for logging is exactly the point of SLF4J. We're going to stick with it for now. Closing as wontfix.
qualidafial
on 12 Jul 2017
Related issues
goxr3plus
·
4Comments
nonameplum
·
5Comments
rherrmann
·
4Comments
Shujito
·
5Comments
qualidafial
·
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Hm, I'd been planning to expand use of
slf4j(almost exclusively atTRACElevel) to make it easier to see what's going on under the hood.My understanding is that
j.u.lis considered inferior in many ways and most of the advice I've seen says to stay away from it.What's wrong with slf4j? If you really don't want it you can bridge it to jul or even just the
noplogger.