I think Gary's point was that naming everything as log4j-* is more consistent. But yes, SLF4J's scheme is more about being descriptive. SLF4J includes slf4j-log4j12.jar (BTW - I really like the picture at http://www.slf4j.org/legacy.html - we need to create something like it). I'm afraid if we include slf4j-log4j2 they might think it is from SLF4J instead of Log4j. That is also why I don't really like slf4j-impl.
One major difference we have with SLF4J is that it provides bindings from logging frameworks into SLF4J and also provides bindings from SLF4J to other logging frameworks. We only provide adapters from other logging APIs to Log4j. I have not had any intention of competing with SLF4J for being a universal logging API. Ralph On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote: > > "log4j-slf4j" or "slf4j-log4j"? Or, maybe more consistently, "slf4j-log4j2"? > > The SLF4j binding for Log4j-1.2.x is "slf4j-log4j12". Seems like the SLF4j > project has defined the naming scheme already. I'm not sure I see a point in > straying from it? Or am I missing something? > > > Jake > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:08:37 -0700 > Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> After this discussion I think I am inclined to agree. Based on that I think >> I will just remove it. >> Gary does have a valid point about the jar names, although we could probably >> argue about them all day. The only one that really bothers me is >> slf4j-impl. I guess I would prefer log4j-slf4j. I don't think adding >> -adpater to all of them is really necessary to know what they are. >> Ralph >> On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >>> I see your point. I was confused at first, thinking you guys wanted an >>> everything-in-one jar, but all you were talking about was api + core. My >>> apologies. I am not in favor of the combined jar. I the name is confusing >>> and don't see much benefit. I personally would rather keep the 2 artifacts >>> separate. Paul >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >
