That might work, yeah.
> On Jan 17, 2024, at 12:46 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>
> We can move the spi package content in main to a separate module in main.
> SPI problem is solved?
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 18:33, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote:
>
>> I suspect this won’t work that well once I’ve implemented
>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/1977 as the current
>> provider SPI is fairly lacking. It might make more sense to release the
>> main API as 3.0.0 and have 2.x depend on the updated API.
>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2024, at 10:11 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given Ralph and Piotr are strongly opinionated about keeping
>>> `log4j-api-3.x` binary compatible to `log4j-api-2.x`, can we not release
>>> `log4j-api-3.x` in `main` and make `main` only depend on `log4j-api-2.x`
>>> instead? (We can move the contents of the `spi` package in
>> `log4j-api-3.x`
>>> to a separate `log4j-spi` module in `main`.) This will make everything
>>> crystal clear:
>>>
>>> - Log4j 3 is just a major improvement over the backend
>>> - Log4j 3 still supports Log4j 2 API
>>> - We can move the Log4j 2 API to a separate repository with its own
>>> release life cycle (ala SLF4J)
>>> - When time comes to make a new Log4j API where PMC agrees to make
>>> breaking changes, we can call that one Log4j 3 API
>>>
>>> I would appreciate it if you can help me to understand if I am
>>> missing something. Otherwise, I would like to know why we need to make a
>>> major release for a project that is identical to its previous version.
>>
>>
