On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:45 AM, ceki <c...@qos.ch> wrote: > On 01.06.2012 04:41, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> If you don't do that then you end up with a bunch of optional >> dependencies that you will forget to include or a bunch of required >> dependencies that you may not really need. >> >> Separating the API from the impl is useful as it keeps users from >> accessing stuff that wasn't meant to be public - which is one of the >> more serious problems in 1.x. >> >> Ralph >> > > Agreed. Separating chainsaw and lf5 into new modules is most > reasonable. However, modularization can be easily overdone. Assuming > the code in org.apache.log4j.net has not changed much since the last > time I looked, I would recommend that the org.apache.log4j.net be part > of the core module, not separate. >
+1, please don't over do it. And at least give me an option to use one server-side jar to rule them all. G > > -- > Ceki > http://twitter.com/#!/ceki > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.**apache.org<log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.**org<log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org> > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
