Yea I think we all go that. Important part is: - "log4j-1.2-api" becomes "log4j-1.2-bridge" and is named "Log4j 1.2 Bridge" - "log4j-jcl" becomes "log4j-jcl-bridge" and is named "Commons Logging Bridge" - "log4j-slf4j-impl" becomes "log4j-slf4j-bridge" and is named "SLF4J Bridge"
Consistency is a good thing, and it helps users out by not confusing them. Nick On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > Small correction: I'd like to rename the log4j-1.2-api jar to > log4j-1.2-bridge-2.0.jar (without api in the name). > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2013/07/18, at 11:07, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Currently we have three different names for things that provide a >> bridge/adapter from other logging APIs to the Log4j2 implementation: >> (Commons Logging) Bridge, (Log4j 1.2) API, and (SLF4J) Binding. >> >> Would it be a good idea to call them all "Bridge"? >> >> On the web site, components would then become: >> Commons Logging Bridge, Log4j 1.2 Bridge, and SLF4J Bridge. >> >> The jar files would become: >> log4j-jcl-bridge-2.0.jar >> log4j-1.2-api-bridge-2.0.jar >> log4j-slf4j-bridge-2.0.jar >> >> I would especially like to rename log4j-1.2-api-2.0.jar so we only have one >> jar with "api" in the name. >> >> Thoughts?
