On 2/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ceki Gülcü</b> <<a href="mailto:listid@qos.ch">listid@qos.ch</a>> wrote:<br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
One of the reasons why SLF4J is relatively successful is due to its<br>simplicity. SLF4J only does static-binding and ito fails-fast. If<br>there is no slf4j-binding available SLF4J prints an error message and<br>dies immediately (it fails-fast).
</blockquote><div><br>Still possible with the Service API; except you could have much better error messages than is technically possible with the current solution.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The ServiceProvider interface is only available in JDK 1.6. </blockquote><div><br>It is available since 1.4 as sun.misc.ServiceLoader, even in 1.6<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Moreover, it used the thread context class loader. SLF4J is not going to go on<br>that road in the immediate future.</blockquote></div><br>I really think it would be worth everyone while if time is taken at some point to explore this solution. I get the strong sense there is an unfounded fear of ClassLoaders due to past bad experiences with them; ClassLoader != problems. I look forward to seeing some serious consideration given to this option in the future, instead of a knee jerk "classloader-bad!" response. I think I've provided an enormous amount of information on the subject that should be plenty to develop a working solution as soon as people are willing to give it a try.
<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>-- <br>- Eric