Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Russell E Glaue wrote:
Okay then, this is great.
Then despite the fact that both Geronimo and Jetty do not implement the latest slf4j, they can implement the latest logback-core/access.
I have already requested that Jetty implement the latest 1.5.6 of slf4j, it is in issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JETTY-865
I will do the same for Geronimo.
Thank you.
Well, as it turns out, there is no interest in adding library support for Logback into Jetty, at this time. Jetty is moving to a "Jetty @ Eclipse" core distribution - I refer to it as "jetty-core". http://www.nabble.com/Jetty-%40-Eclipse---td20851567.html#a20867927 I had a discussion on the jetty-dev mail list: http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Jetty-6.2-or-7.0-for-new-features--td2162753... The JSP 2.0 implementation in Jetty-6 actually required a commons logging type of support. This is the reason for including slf4j in Jetty6. The reason for downgrading slf4j support is due to the fact that they did not know about it, and it was an accident - as slf4j is never used in Jetty-7. Additionally, Jetty 6 and 7 have support for log4j to implement application logging. There does not seem to be any interest in replacing log4j with Logback. One of the main reason appears to be that Logback is LGPL and not either APL or EPL. I think this is a little weird, because all three licenses are GPL compatible. So I am not understanding the reasoning why Logback could not legally be used. However I do understand that in the move to Eclipse, the Jetty community is steering clear of anything that might potentially give reason to slow down the process of getting Jetty moved to Eclipse. I think that after Jetty @ Eclipse has been established, there might be more openness to adding additional third party library support to Jetty-core. In the mean time, it is my belief that additional enterprise-worthy library support (like Logback) can be requested to be added to Geronimo or other upstream software implementations of Jetty-core. My team here at the center is working on a GBean implementation of Logback's RequestLogImpl class. After its completion, we are planning to contribute it to Geronimo. Is the Logback community interested in receiving the Geronimo GBean contribution? Perhaps it is better to give the GBean implemention to Logback's distribution, then implement it in Geronimo from there? Comments/Discussion? -RG