> 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.
Suggestion: the easy part is to make chainsaw and lf5 classes a module. I have nuked them but Jacob requested they come back :-) These are all GUI related stuff. Next thing I'll do is create the module folders and get the code back to these. Then we can move the rest into a "core" folder and create the parent pom. Do you think this would be an acceptable move? Not sure we should do it exactly like Anthony did it here, but this is for sure inspiring: https://github.com/astubbs/log4j/tree/modulriseify I already wrote Anthony an mail to rejoin :-) Cheers Christian > >> 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 > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
