2012/1/12 Ken Finnigan <ken@kenfinnigan.me>

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.

Please provide feedback on content and language used, as I want this to get the discussion off on the right foot.

Ken

=============================
All,

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

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.

I see that there are several goals that we want for logging in DeltaSpike:

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.

It must perform. We don't want to introduce large overhead to logging.

There should be an option to allow/provide type safe logging.

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.

Thoughts?

Regards

Ken Finnigan

============================

_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

--
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal