As I understand it, what you are saying is possible but Log4j doesn’t currently need to load these dependencies dynamically. We dynamically load our plugins, but the plugins we are talking about are provided by Log4j. These plugins use a third party jar and these are hard-wired dependencies. This all works fine today as Java doesn’t care about circularities. Of course we do and handle that situation at runtime if an actual circularity exists when performing the logging operations. But there is no problem if Log4j needs Kafka, and Kafka needs Log4j.
Ralph > On May 9, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Pedro Lamarão <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello all! > I have been lurking on the list for a while, as a user of both log4j and > log4cxx. > This Java 9 module situation greatly interests me. > About the circularity problem, isn't it the case that loading modules at > runtime will solve the circularity problem? > As far as I understand the new system, it is possible to build a new Layer > and load modules into it. > Say the application depends on log4j. At runtime, log4j-core discovers the > need to load log4j-foo. It creates a new Layer and loads log4j-foo and foo > into it. foo may depend on log4j, yes, but that is already loaded in the > parent Layer. > Am I missing something? > Regards, > P. > > > Em 09/05/2017 12:43, Ralph Goers escreveu: >> While it may sound reasonable, it is not. Matt’s point about LoggerFinder >> and our support of NoSQL appenders and the like is proof that there are >> valid reasons for circularities. We are just lucky that Jackson and >> Disruptor don’t seem to do logging or we would have circularities there too. >> >> BTW - I got a private answer to my question on this. It was that I should >> post my question to the jigsaw dev list but that I should expect that Log4j >> - or at least pieces of it - can’t be modularized. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On May 9, 2017, at 8:24 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On May 9, 2017 12:18 AM, "Remko Popma" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Mark Reinhold's reasoning in his response (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/ >>> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/> >>> pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-May/000695.html) makes sense to me. >>> >>> >>> Sounds reasonable indeed. Reading this latest sounds like JBoss has a lot >>> of work to do in order to fit in Java 9 modules from its own module system >>> and they'd rather not do more work than less, which is understandable. MR's >>> view on a conservative first cut makes sense. It is so late in the Java 9 >>> timeframe that these change requests seem doomed anyway. >>> >>> Gary > > -- > > <image001.jpg> > Pedro Lamarão > PRODIST TECHNOLOGIES > http://www.prodist.com.br <http://www.prodist.com.br/> > "Securing Critical Systems" > > (11) 3672-3526 > (21) 2292-9481 > (21) 98887-5175 > > >
