You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
(I'm not sure where I should write this kind of discussion so I filed an issue. This issue is just a proposal for the maintainer; not a bug stuff 👍🏻)
We can see the following log when we launch the server (and there are lots of mentions in issues of this repo):
SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.
I propose that it should be ok if we suppress this warning by adding slf4j-nop into dependencies. The kotlin-language-server seems to be mainly taking advantage of java.util.logging.Logger as far as I know. I tried to add it on my local machine and the removal was working fine. The page in the message says the following thing as well:
If you are responsible for packaging an application and do not care about logging, then placing slf4j-nop.jar on the class path of your application will get rid of this warning message
What do you think about that? If that seems to be ok, I would like to work on this!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree that it would be best to get rid of the warning, but ideally we should forward those messages to JUL too, so they get picked up by own our logging pipeline.
(I'm not sure where I should write this kind of discussion so I filed an issue. This issue is just a proposal for the maintainer; not a bug stuff 👍🏻)
We can see the following log when we launch the server (and there are lots of mentions in issues of this repo):
I propose that it should be ok if we suppress this warning by adding
slf4j-nop
into dependencies. The kotlin-language-server seems to be mainly taking advantage ofjava.util.logging.Logger
as far as I know. I tried to add it on my local machine and the removal was working fine. The page in the message says the following thing as well:What do you think about that? If that seems to be ok, I would like to work on this!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: