On 05.06.2012 14:53, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2012/6/5 ceki<c...@qos.ch>:
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.
It's not a question of the module themselves, but a question about the
dependency they carry with them.
In this case, "net" module carries the javax.mail dependency, that you
need only if you want to use it.
Good point regarding javax.mail.
Dependencies is one criteria for modularizing. Another criteria is the
release cycle. If the log4j-net module is always released at the same
time as log4j-core, then it *may* make sense to merge them. Note that
the release cycles for chainsaw and respectively lf5 are radically
different. As for the javax.mail dependency, documenting javax.mail as
dependency for SMTPAppender may suffice.
Lumping all modules into one in addition to the smaller modules
creates two separate packaging branches which must be maintained and
documented separately. It's just not a valid option for such a widely
used project such as log4j.
IOW, you should put yourself in the shoes of the Maven users: if
he/she does not want to use mail, he/she has to exclude it. If you
flag it as optional, it is not obvious for the user that he/she has to
include it.
Including java.mail as a non-optional transitive dependency is out of
question. Is anyone suggesting that approach? As for flagging it as
optional, well, just document the dependency. If the o.a.log4j.net
module is separate, then you still have to document the existence fo
the log4j-net module (obviously). Compare that to documenting the
javax.mail dependency. I am not sure the former approach compares that
favorably from the user's point of view.
So guess what is the solution? Right, modules :-)
As should be apparent from the above, it's not so clear cut to me. :-)
Antonio
--
Ceki
http://twitter.com/#!/ceki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
