Use slf4j instead of Java util logger

[johanhaleby]

I think it would be better for Jedis to use slf4j instead of the java util logger. This would enable apps to determine which logger to use in production.

[xetorthio]

I think I should read more about the differences, because I like not to have another external dependency.
But if slf4j is better, we should go for it.

[johanhaleby]

I understand that you want to keep the dependencies to a minimum. But afaik slf4j is more or less the defacto standard and it's good for end users not to be forced into using a specific logging framework. In our case we need to configure two frameworks because Jedis uses util logging the the rest of the system uses log4j (over slf4j). If Jedis were to use slf4j the end users themselves could hook in the implementation that they like.

[xetorthio]

Probably it is my error. But I thought that was the idea behind java.util.logging, an API for logging, to be able to use different implementations with no overhead.
So probably 1.6.0 will have slf4j, better logging messages, exception handling, and bunch of other cool and nice features :)

[johanhaleby]

I could also be mistaken, I'm not an expert on util logging so don't take my word on this. I didn't know that util logging supported different implementations. Perhaps it's me who should read up on things before posting all over the net :)

[johanhaleby]

After a brief check up I don't think it's the case that util logging supports different implementations. To my knowledge it's just a plain logging framework and cannot be used as a facade around other frameworks which slf4j does:

The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) serves as a simple facade or abstraction for various logging frameworks, e.g. java.util.logging, log4j and logback, allowing the end-user to plug in the desired logging framework at deployment time.