<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I'm consulting with Pentaho architects back-channel to see what would work. There seems to be general support for the idea at this point.<div><br></div><div>It seems that the pull request is against the lagunitas branch (i.e. mondrian-4.0). That's good. I think changing to SLF4J would be too disruptive in a point release (e.g. 3.7).</div><div><br></div><div>I would also favor a "pure" use of SLF4J, without any references to log4j, logback or any other logging framework in the code. It remains to be seen whether that goal is a reasonable one.</div><div><br></div><div>(It's interesting. This discussion is analogous to the discussion about whether to move applications to olap4j versus continuing to use Mondrian's API. SLF4J was created in part to allow people to move from a legacy API (log4j) to a newer one (logback) -- similar to my motivations for creating olap4j.)<br><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div>Julian</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Luc Boudreau <<a href="mailto:lucboudreau@gmail.com">lucboudreau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I don't have any particular feelings towards slf4j. A few community members have asked for slf4j support in the past, typically in deeply embedded systems where log4j's weird buffering model causes problems with auditing / traceability. I don't think this would be a change for the sake of it. It does address a few issues.<br>
<br>As for release timelines, it could be done for the June point release (probably 3.7.0). We only have a few days left to prepare for 3.6.0 so the timing isn't exactly right.<br><br>As for support, the BA server at Pentaho already bundles slf4j so we wouldn't introduce any new dependencies in the ecosystem. I believe that it would be safe enough.<br>
<br>Luc<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Julian Hyde <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhyde@pentaho.com" target="_blank">jhyde@pentaho.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">A pull request has been submitted to convert Mondrian to use SLF4J (from log4j).<div><br></div><div>Is this a good idea, or is it change for change's sake? I would like to hear the opinions of the community.</div>
<div><br></div><div>When would be the right timescale? Mondrian-3.6? Mondrian-4?</div><div><br></div><div>Julian<br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline!important;float:none"> </span><a href="https://github.com/pentaho/mondrian/pull/61" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">https://github.com/pentaho/mondrian/pull/61</a></blockquote>
</div></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Mondrian mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Mondrian@pentaho.org">Mondrian@pentaho.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian" target="_blank">http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>Mondrian mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Mondrian@pentaho.org">Mondrian@pentaho.org</a><br>http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>