Oh, yeah - those are valid concerns.

Let's stick to JUL ? 

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko@redhat.com> wrote:
I like JUL because it has no dependencies, stable API (albeit not feature
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 JBoss
2/ JBossLogging version conflicts - WF provides version 3.2, UPS needs 3.1+ and
KC needs 3.0+?



On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:27:52 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> right now we are using JUL for logging. That works fine, so far :-)
> However related projects (e.g. Keycloak / LiveOak) are using JBoss Logging.
> 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 :)
> Thanks!
> Matthias

aerogear-dev mailing list

Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf