I am OK with this plan. I understand why Volkan wants -api though. If log4j-api was named ALA4J (Apache Logging API for Java) then you would rightfully want to name the bridge slf4j-to-ala4j. By naming it slf4j-to-log4j it is ambiguous.
Ralph > On Oct 22, 2024, at 9:52 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Volkan > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 21:36, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci.invalid> wrote: >> >> I am in favor of the rebranding approach and covering all bridges. That is, >> I suggest adding new modules to `2.x` with bullet-proof self-explanatory >> names, e.g., >> >> - `*log4j-api*-to-slf4j` > > I like the idea, although I wouldn't go as far as adding an `-api` > suffix to `log4j-to-jul` and `log4j-to-slf4j`: they seem already > correctly named. > > Since I would like to release `3.0.0-beta3` some time soon and we did > not reach a larger consensus, I propose to: > > - Remove **all** the bridges from `3.0.0-beta3`, with the exception of > `Log4jBridgeHandler`, which is not an API-to-API bridge, but an > appender for JUL user by Spring Boot. > - Create a `logging-slf4j` repo that will contain the SLF4J-to-Log4j > and Log4j-to-SLF4J bridge, > - Create a `logging-jul` repo that will contain the JUL-to-Log4j and > Log4j-to-JUL bridges. > - Add to `log4j-bom` the references to the 2.x version of the bridges. > > What do you think?
