This is in regards to recently filed bug 36805 (http://
issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36805). If there has been
any previous discussion, I have missed it.
All this information may be in attachments to the bug, but it would
be helpful to me if you provide some essential background information.
What is the source of the initial submission? Do you have clear
rights to donate the code to Apache Software Foundation? Do you have
a Contributor's License Agreement (http://www.apache.org/licenses) on
file?
Do you think that the code would need to go through the Incubator
(http://incubator.apache.org)
How does this relate to GNU Classpath (http://www.gnu.org/software/
classpath/) which provides independent clean-room implementations of
core class libraries and appears to implement java.util.logging? The
GNU Classpath implementations take great care avoid potential legal
issues (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq3_2)
that we don't encounter.
How would conflicts between the JDK provided implementation of
java.util.logging and JULI be resolved?
SLF4J is not an Apache project and having an Apache product depend on
a non-ASF project is undesirable. What is the nature of the
dependency on SLF4J?
Is JULI an acronym? If so, what is the full name?
My initial reaction is that there are too many legal and licensing
issues to justify the project in light of only vague outlined benefits.
