So much better.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 22:40, Nick Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > > Yes! Preach on brother :) +1 > > Gary > > > 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? > > > -- Cheers, Paul
