It sounds reasonable. Agree to improve pax-logging in that way. Regards JB
On 17/01/2019 20:29, Robert Varga wrote: > On 17/01/2019 19:46, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote: >> I understand. I don't remember (wasn't there when pax-logging was founded), >> but it's about those exotic appenders you can use. >> But in OSGi, it'd be probably better to rewrite/adjust the >> discover/extensibility part in pax-logging-log4j2, to use our beloved TCCL >> instead or kind of service discovery / locator. > > Yes, and also it would be nice to have a basic slim core jar and have > rest optionally delivered -- I bet most deployments would use much less > than 1.8MiB this is currently costing... > > Regards, > Robert > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
