> On Jun 26, 2023, at 12:17 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 20:33, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 2023, at 11:32 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 22:00, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can we publish log4j-core so it spits out a deprecation warning and just
>>>> pulls in log4j-impl or log4j-runtime or whatever?
>>>
>>> This is probably the best solution.
>>
>> How can it be implemented?
>
> We replace `log4j-core` with an empty JAR file with `log4j-impl` as
> dependency.
I can’t say I am thrilled with this idea but I also can’t point to any concrete
problems it would cause without testing.
>
>>> We could also consider adding other dependencies to `log4j-core` that
>>> were split into separate modules, like `log4j-smtp`.
>>
>> I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here.
>
> My idea was to add as dependencies of `log4j-core` all the 3.x modules
> that were split off it. This way users would have the same
> `log4j-core` as in 2.x. I am however not convinced it could work,
> since 2.x optional dependencies would become non-optional deps.
I think that would be a horrible idea. It defeats the whole point of splitting
them out.
Ralph
