On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Every module equates to another jar. I just don’t see why we need a jar > for one class where a jar with 2 (as well as classes for other app servers) > will serve equally as well. > First, thank you for being patient here and continuing to entertain this idea :-) So much can get lost in emails. The case of app servers is a great one because these are usually huge complex beasts with sometimes lots of dependencies. I do not think we want to end up with a kitchen sink app server module. >From a developer's experience POV, I would never want my tooling (like Maven) to end up downloading and configuring in a project jars from a bunch of app servers and their dependencies. Especially since any single application will likely only use a single app server (like the one I am working on now, we are using Jetty and that's it.) Gary > Ralph > > > On Nov 9, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It seems to me that what repo this lives in is an orthogonal concern. We > > already have plenty of repos IMO, I don't want to track another one, but > > hey, that's just me. If log4j-appserver is OK in the main repo, so should > > log4j-jetty. > > > > Gary > > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > wrote: > > > >> If you want a specific log4-jetty than we should create a > log4j-appserver > >> repo and make log4j-tomcat and log4j-jetty there. Otherwise just put it > in > >> log4j-appserver with a provided dependency. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> How about we rename log4j-appserver to log4j-tomcat and add > log4j-jetty? > >>> > >>> Gary > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Oops. It should be marked as provided. Almost the same effect though. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The dependency on Tomcat should have been marked optional. That is my > >>>> mistake. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ralph > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What about our theme/epic of reducing dependencies? I do not want to > >>>> drag > >>>>>> Tomcat down into my local repo or on my class path in my IDE just > >>>> because I > >>>>>> am depending on log4j-appserver's one class for Jetty logging. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gary > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ralph Goers < > >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is exactly what log4j-appserver is for. Right now it contains > >> the > >>>>>>> hook for Tomcat 8.5. Having that class in a jar that also contains > >> the > >>>> hook > >>>>>>> for Jetty shouldn’t cause any problems. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would like to propose we add a new module called log4j-jetty > whose > >>>> sole > >>>>>>>> purpose is to implement org.eclipse.jetty.util.log.Logger > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is a way to get Log4j 1 and 2 to work with Jetty but it has > to > >>>> go > >>>>>>>> through Slf4j. I'd rather go directly. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
