> I don't see how your logic and a regular SLF4J implementation could > coexist. In a simple environment, class path order would decide on > which implementation would be picked. Also, I don't think your logic > makes any sense when picking SLF4J as the logging API. For the > non-sophisticated users that you are worried about, pick one of the > SLF4J implementations and document that it's th one they get. For all > other needs, the regular SLF4J JAR is the one to use. I would think > pretty much every one will end up with the slim JAR anyways, but time > will tell.
This is my understanding of the proposal too. If the user doesn't want to worry about logging, they get the embedded slf4j-api + simple logger, or maybe JDK logger for Java 1.4+. If they want pluggable logging, then they need the JSecurity distribution without the embedded slf4j-api. Cheers, Peter
