Oh, yeah - those are valid concerns.
Let's stick to JUL ?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I like JUL because it has no dependencies, stable API (albeit not
complete) and no class path clashes.
If you go with JBoss Logging, what would be the strategy for:
1/ Running UPS on Server in application platform that does not provide
2/ JBossLogging version conflicts - WF provides version 3.2, UPS needs
KC needs 3.0+?
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:27:52 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
> right now we are using JUL for logging. That works fine, so far :-)
> However related projects (e.g. Keycloak / LiveOak) are using JBoss
> I somewhat feel that it's perhaps not a bad idea if we would use JBoss
> logging as well...
> I know there are a gazillion different Java logging frameworks out there
> (yikes), but my question is really: keep JUL or go with JBoss-Logging :)
aerogear-dev mailing list