That's certainly possible. The trade off is that we'd need to track the SLF4J binding mechanism and update our implementation when this binding mechanism changes.
What problem are we trying to solve? Remko > On Sep 25, 2017, at 7:16, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > In looking at the implementations of log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j is > strikes me that log4j-to-slf4j is binding to the SLF4J API while > log4j-slf4j-impl is binding the SFL4J API to the log4j implementation using > SLF4J’s binding mechanism. So it seems to me that instead of having > log4j-to-slf4j call the SLF4J API we ought to be able to have it call the > SLF4J bindings and completely bypass SLF4J itself. Some user’s might find > this more palatable as it would remove one layer between the Log4j API and > whatever logging implementation the user chose. > > Thoughts? > > Ralph
