See below. On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > OK. The current combined jar only includes API and core and has no required > dependencies that are different than core. I am imagining that many will > prefer to use this single jar instead of having to include both the API and > core jars. What is your opinion on that and if positive, what would you name > it? > > Let's see, if we have an api + core jar, then that means you can use Log4J > out of the box with the one jar (as you could with -all), maybe > log4j-standalone? Or just log4j? I like log4j-standalone better than log4j-combined. I have mixed feelings about log4j.jar since that is what the legacy jar is named. > > Should "log4j-core" be "log4j-impl"? I almost did that > > Why is it slf4j-impl and not log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-slf4j? Good question. > > Why is it log4j-jcl and not log4j-jcl-impl? > > It seems we should have a naming pattern for bridges to other logging > systems, either the name or name-impl. > > We could then have: > log4j-impl > log4j-jcl-impl > log4j-slf4j-impl > and: > log4j-api > Then the combos: > > log4j-all > log4j-standalone I would be OK with the above. Ralph
