I am fine with this plan. Ralph
> On Aug 9, 2024, at 1:35 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 20:29, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: >> >> Well, one thing that changed in JUL is that it requires the java.logging >> module. Otherwise, the Java 8+ stuff is for the System.Logger API. > > Right, maybe a 3.x version of `log4j-jul` would be useful. Besides the > artifact has an optional dep on `log4j-core`. We might want to split > it into 2 artifacts. > Regarding `log4j-to-jul`, it is so rarely used, I don't see the point > to maintain two identical versions. > > Summarizing: > > * `log4j-iostreams`, `log4j-slf4j-impl`, `log4j-slfj42-impl`, > `log4j-to-jul` and `log4j-to-slf4j` could be removed from `main`. > * `log4j-jpl` and `log4j-jul` should stay. > > Do you agree? > > Piotr
