api and core are still (and would be) separate components in SVN, javadocs and other documentation on the site. All I proposed doing was also delivering a jar that merges the two. FWIW, API has no dependencies. Core only has optional dependencies. So the combined jar isn't much different from core in that respect. I do understand your concern that the "-all" jar would have lots of optional dependencies that aren't optional if you really want to use the component (this is especially true of Flume). That is why I didn't create a "-all" jar and I'm not as much in favor of it.
Ralph On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > The nice thing about keeping api divided from core is simply design. There > may be no reason to keep this split unless we can always ensure core will not > require more dependencies. It might be safer to keep them divided. > > I am not too fond of the "impl" but would rather see "adapter" since that's > really what the jar represents. It's an adaptive implementation of another > person's API. For example, log4j-slf4j-adapter is much more expressive to me. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Paul > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 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? > > Should "log4j-core" be "log4j-impl"? > > Why is it slf4j-impl and not log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-slf4j? > > 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 > Gary > > > Ralph > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I may have misunderstood, but I'll give it another shot! >> >> I don't like combined jars. It's because there's too many dependencies >> associated with them. It makes the POM kind of worthless because any >> extensions are all <optional>true</option> ... so you have to go manually >> add those to your Maven project anyway to get them. I think that kind of >> defeats the purpose of an all-in-one jar. >> >> My only point was if there is a combined jar that has everything, call it >> "-all" not "-combined" >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Tushar Kapila <tgkp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I prefer all.jar or ApiAndCore.jar >> Even if OSes accept special characters there will always be closed systems >> that do not. Exampple hyphen is okay in a domain name but one of the visa >> test pit's don't like them >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
