2017/3/20 2:29:12 -0700, c...@qos.ch: > 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 > > https://jira.qos.ch/browse/SLF4J-401
Excellent -- glad to hear this! - Mark
