2012/6/1 Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>: >> 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?
So if I understand you well, you would like to create a core, simply by removing the GUI-related stuff? I think that, if a reorganization has to be done, it should be done the right way. > > 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 :-) > With the exception of directory naming, it seems like a good job. Why did'nt you take it in consideration 2 years ago? Antonio --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
