2012/6/1 Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Jacob Kjome <h...@visi.com> wrote: >>> The main point is separate the tools from the library. That means each of >>> Lf5, Chainsaw1, and Chainsaw2 have their own artifacts, separate from >>> Log4j.jar. That's all. This will make Log4j.jar much smaller (by >>> extracting Lf5 and Chainsaw1). Only users that specifically want to use the >>> tools will need to get their appropriate jar. And all will depend upon >>> Log4j.jar. That really doesn't seem too complex to me. >> >> Well, I agree on splitting the logging from the UI, it's the all the little >> jars this-over-that that-over-this, that I find lame. > > Agreed, no need to split "everything" to save space. But UI should be > out, and we need to take care on JMX etc dependencies. Those can > really cause headache to some users. Not sure if we need modules here, > maybe another option comes up (like change from compiled scope to > provided)
Yes believe me, we need modules. Provided scope's use case is not the one that you mentioned. You can mark a dependency as "optional" but then you leave the burden of adding a dependency to the user, without the benefit of transitive dependencies. It's not so obvious. The best thing is to have modules, with explicit and minimal dependencies. So if a user wants the Log4j support for NT logging, he/she will add that specific module. > Another important thing for me: extract the windows related build > stuff. It caused much pain. I think that the Nar plugin could help, but I will check it when the right time comes. Antonio --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
