Hi Gary, On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 13:11, Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org> wrote: > - `jul-to-log4j-core`: I understand that name as: The JUL API is implemented > in terms of Log4j's own impl guts. The difference with `jul-to-log4j-api` is > that we directly implement JUL? Without going though log4j-api? If that's a > yes on both, do we also have both `slf4j-to-log4j-api` and > `slf4j-to-log4j-core`?
To be honest, I don't like this name either. Currently `log4j-jul` has a JUL appender that can be used if the user cannot replace the JUL implementation with a bridging implementation. Since the performance of such a solution sucks (to capture all JUL log events you end up configuring the JUL threshold to ALL), there is also a Log4j Core configuration listener that synchronizes the thresholds used by JUL and Log4j Core. This "solution" gives users the possibility to capture JUL log events, but Spring Boot does not enable it, unless it is running in standalone mode. Piotr
