It would be impossible to support Logback without pulling in slf4j-api, and the extra jars is what causes the perception of a problem.
On 26 September 2017 at 03:20, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
