Log4j 2 is already a multi-module build. I am not at all sure why you would want to expend all this effort on a 1.3 when 2.0 should be our next target.
Ralph On May 31, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote: > Hi all > following Christian's rant at Google+: > https://plus.google.com/102440702937210603575/posts/HbD1fa9NGHY > I started forking Log4j at GitHub: > https://github.com/apetrelli/log4j > > The first step I did is providing a stub for a multi-module build. > Assuming that Log4j should be multi-module is fundamental. I don't > want to start a Maven lesson, you can see anywhere about the benefit > of having separated modules with well-identified dependencies. > For now, I have only a parent project (pom type) and a "core" project, > that soon will go on a diet, moving code in other modules. > > About the version, you might notice that I put "1.3.0-SNAPSHOT" > version because, at the end, you will not recognize Log4j 1.2.x > artifacts at all. They will be more numerous, smaller and with > specific dependencies. > > Feel free to discuss or to help via forking. > > Best regards > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
