It was indeed my intention to have Jetty, JBoss, etc in that module. They are all mutually exclusive and presumably the dependencies would be <scope>provided</scope> so there really should be no conflict in having them all reside in the same module.
I haven’t been pushing splitting up core as I have been advocating that some of the things in the log4j 2 build might be better served being moved to another repo/sub-project much as we have done for Scala. Ralph > On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure how much of semantic versioning we really want to adopt or > have adopted in the past. This is really about managing user's expectations > when they update from one version to the next. > > In this case, a new module feels like a new feature. Yes, the new module > adds only one class, but we can slap a "Works with Apache Tomcat" sticker > on the front now, so I am leaning toward 2.10.0. > > Also, do we really want to end up with an log4j-appserver module as opposed > to a log4j-tomcat module? What happens when we want to provide some code > for JBoss, WebSphere, and so on? It seems heavy/messy to lump all of those > dependencies in the one module. Especially since we have been talking > splitting up the core module... > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one >> class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to >> accommodate. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module >>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's >>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that, >>>> I'd rather wait for that first. >>>> >>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in >>>>> 2.9.0? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the >> week >>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is >>>>>> released. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >> >>
