As per today's Seam meeting, below is a draft of an email I'll send to the DeltaSpike mailing list to re ignite the logging discussion, as it is on hold at present.<br><br>Please provide feedback on content and language used, as I want this to get the discussion off on the right foot.<br>
<br>Ken<br><br>=============================<br>All,<br><br>As we approach a 0.1 release of DeltaSpike, congratulations to everyone on the good work so far, I feel it's a good time to begin discussing how we want to handle logging within DeltaSpike. I certainly don't expect this discussion to result in code for 0.1, but the earlier we begin this discussion, then it increases the likelihood of it being ready for 0.2<br>
<br>Having been heavily involved in the logging work for Solder, I know the pain that can be experienced in not getting it right, and also how long it can take to get right.<br><br>I see that there are several goals that we want for logging in DeltaSpike:<br>
<ol><li>Make it simple for both extension writers and end users. If it's too difficult to implement, use or even get right, then we'll frustrate and alienate developers.</li><li>It must perform. We don't want to introduce large overhead to logging.</li>
<li>There should be an option to allow/provide type safe logging.</li><li>An end user should be able to have DeltaSpike log against whichever logging library they want to utilize in their application. We can certainly support a specific framework as a default, but it's important to allow a developer to have the same control over how DeltaSpike is logged as their own application.</li>
</ol><p>Thoughts?</p><p>Regards</p><p>Ken Finnigan</p><p>============================</p><p><br></p>