On March 20, 2017 1:44 AM Alam Bateman wrote:

> There isn't any notification/callback. Also it's not clear to me that
> injecting code into SLF4J is the right thing to do (it feels like hacking).
> If I were a SLF4J maintainer then I think I would re-visit how the API
> locates the logging framework binding. Specifically I would look to
> migrate it to services. So rather than each binding a
> org.slf4j.impl.StaticXXXX classes, it would instead provide an
> implementation of a service type that SLF4J puts in an exported package.
> It may be that cleaning up this area can be done without any impact to
> user code and I would expect the issue of the simple binding to just
> fall out of the wash.
> -Alan.

Not only do I agree, that's actually the plan for the next SLF4J version. For what it's worth, to track progress I have also created


Best regards,


Reply via email to