I will say that the one thing that is missing is a page on the Log4j 2 web site like http://www.slf4j.org/legacy.html that documents these components (with similar pretty pictures) and compares them with what is offered by SLF4J.
Ralph On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Also, "binding" is the term SLF4J uses for implementations of its API, so > that should make sense to SLF4J users looking for implementations. Log4j 1.2 > is an implementation of that API - the "real" log4j 1.x jars should not be > used. The JCL bridge is exactly that, a bridge between the Commons Logging > jar and Log4j 2 (the commons logging jar is required). > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We have already renamed these at least twice. Just leave them be. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 17, 2013, at 7:07 PM, 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?
