Les Hazlewood wrote:
Damnit!
I just realized that this change now requires _two_ additional Jars on
top of jsecurity.jar: slf4j-api.jar and one of slf4j's bindings
(slf4j-log4j12.jar, slf4j-jdk14.jar, etc.)
This had the exact _opposite_ effect of my biggest desire - to
_reduce_ the number of required .jars
:(
OTOH, it bring the flexibility your users want. Are they using Log4j ?
np at all. The very same for JUL.
I don't see what's wrong with this. Again, if JSecurity is meant to be
used in some complex applications, I don't see how problematic it is to
carry 2 jars when the applications themselves will carry possibly hundreds !
There is no silver bullet... Sorry that Sun messed it up with JUL, but
this is something we have to live with (even if nobody is using JUL ...)
And your thin layer won't solve this problem in any way. If I'm a user,
writing my own application and using log4j, I really want all the logs
for all the libs I'm using to be configured through a single
configuration file. This is way more important than having to deal with
two jars I will almost anyway have in some of my pom.xml/build.xml.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
