Sounds to me that Ralph's analysis shows that doing the binding ourselves may not be worth doing since we can't get an advantage by either improving people's perception nor improve performance. Unless I'm missing something.
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 16:34, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think we should support binding to Logback specifically. We should > support binding to any SLF4J implementation (including Logback). We should > probably test this with Logback though, since it's one of the most popular > SLF4J implementations. > > >> On 2017-09-26 03:58, Matt Sicker wrote: >> Would it be possible to make a log4j-api provider that binds directly to >> logback instead?
