[rules-dev] drools-repository and slf4j

[Mark Proctor]

when we branch we can look at logging frameworks and versions then, sl4j 
seems like a good choice.

Mark
Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
> I've just switched solver to use slf4j:
> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1233
>
>
> I am advising to configure drools-repository and drools-jbrms's 
> logging dependency's like this:
>
>         <!-- Logging -->
>         <dependency>
>           <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
>           <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
>         </dependency>
>         <dependency>
>           <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
>           <artifactId>slf4j-log4j12</artifactId>
>           <scope>test</scope>
>         </dependency>
>         <dependency>
>           <groupId>log4j</groupId>
>           <artifactId>log4j</artifactId>
>           <scope>test</scope>
>         </dependency>
>
> They both need a directy dependency on slf4j-api, because you should 
> only really on transitive dependencies if the only reason you need a 
> transitive dependency is because one of your direct dependencies needs 
> it.
>
> Since Logger is used directly, a direct dependency on slf4j-api should 
> be put at scope compile.
>
> I don't think drools-repository/jbrms want to force their users to use 
> log4j. But unless slf4j-log4j12 is put at test scope (or another scope 
> with optional true) that is the case. Currently it's like this: we use 
> a logging facade so you can log with anything, but we force you to use 
> log4j anyway (luckily users could have excluded it meanwhile as a 
> workaround).
>
> Maybe the log4j dependency is obsolete (as slf4j-log4j12 brings it 
> in), but he solver examples use a domconfigurer directly, so at least 
> solver needs it :/
>
> PS: could we upgrade to the latest slf4j libs?
> We're at 1.3.0 and the latest is 1.4.3
> http://www.mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.slf4j/slf4j-api
> For solver it shouldn't give a problem, maybe for drools-repository it 
> will?
>
>