On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > I wasn't thinking of this from the point of view of the user; they will have > an app that is coded using one of these logging apis, not all three.
Definitely not true! I have both SLF4J and JCL bridges in my applications. My application itself uses the Log4j 2 API, but Spring uses Commons so I need the JCL bridge, and other libraries I consume use SLF4J so I need the SLF4J bridge. If I were retrofitting an old application that had the same libraries but used the Log4j 1.2 API, I would need all three of these JARs. Nick > > > From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:06 AM > Subject: Re: Bridge to other logging APIs > > First, these all started out being called adapters and even had their own > Maven groupId. We changed that a few releases ago. Second, although I have > no problem using the terminology on the web site I just hate having jar names > that long. I don't think it provides any value to them. And I am tired of > renaming things for the sake of renaming things. > > Ralph > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Nick Williams wrote: > > > So, again we are at an impasse it would seem. Paul, Gary, Nick, Remko all > > want to rename these, Ralph opposes. > > > > I /kind of/ see where Ralph's coming from here: > > > > - log4j-slf4j-impl, called "SLF4J Binding," is an actual SLF4J > > implementation. The SLF4J team calls them "bindings." This, the name "SLF4J > > Binding" does make some sense. However, I would thus submit that the > > artifact name log4j-slf4j-binding makes more sense that log4j-slf4j-impl. > > However, I still think "Bridge" makes sense here. It's a bridge between the > > SLF4J API and the Log4j implementation. Think about it this way: > > log4j-slf4j-impl isn't actually an implementation/binding of SLF4J because > > it doesn't actually write anything; it's a bridge between the SLF4J API and > > the Log4j implementation and takes the place of an SLF4J implementation. > > > > - log4j-jcl, already called a bridge, Ralph agrees is a bridge. I fail to > > see a real difference between bridging the Commons API to Log4j and > > bridging the SLF4J API to Log4j. If the Commons Logging team decided to > > create an implementation, this bridge component wouldn't actually change. > > Thus, I submit, it would still be a bridge. Either way, Ralph agrees it's a > > bridge but opposes renaming the artifact as such. > > > > - Ralph's argument for log4j-1.2-api makes the most sense to me. Unlike the > > other two components, which require the SLF4J API JAR and Commons Logging > > API JAR, respectively, log4j-1.2-api /replaces/ the Log4j 1.2 JAR. Users DO > > NOT and SHOULD NOT include the Log4j 1.2 artifacts on their class path when > > using this component. Thus, this really is the Log4j 1.2 API and not a > > bridge between that and Log4j 2. > > > > So then, admittedly later than I should have, I looked up the Bridge > > Pattern and the Adapter Pattern. (The Wikipedia articles on these are > > useful.) Gamm, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides's "Design Patterns" (1995, > > Addison-Wesley) says the Bridge Pattern is meant to "decouple an > > abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary > > independently." Well, that's not exactly what's going on in all of these > > cases. In fact, that really just describes the relationship between the > > Log4j 2 API and the Log4j 2 Core. The Adapter Pattern, on the other hand, > > translates one interface for a class into a compatible interface (Freeman, > > Frooman, Kathy, and Bates. "Head First Design Patterns." O'Reilly. 2013.). > > That's not exactly what's going on in all of these cases, either. > > > > Based on all this info, if I had to describe these three components to > > someone I would do it thusly: > > > > - SLF4J API Bridge > > - Commons Logging API Bridge > > - Log4j 1.2 API Adapter > > > > Based on the "official" definition of these patterns, I think these terms > > are accurate. I also think that using the same term for the Log4j 1.2 > > component could be a problem, because it may lead users to think they need > > the old Log4j JARs just like they need the SLF4J and Commons Logging JARs. > > However, I DO think that using a different term for the SLF4J and JCL > > components could be just as confusing for users. Therefore, I propose: > > > > - "log4j-1.2-api" becomes "log4j-1.2-api-adapter" and is named "Log4j 1.2 > > API Adapter" (leaving API in named to stress that it replaced Log4j 1 JAR) > > - "log4j-jcl" becomes "log4j-jcl-bridge" and is named "Commons Logging API > > Bridge" > > - "log4j-slf4j-impl" becomes "log4j-slf4j-bridge" and is named "SLF4J API > > Bridge" > > > > That's my $0.02. We're still left with Ralph's opposition, and I'll leave > > it up to the big wigs to decide this one. > > > > Nick > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:13 AM, 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). > > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > >> We have already renamed these at least twice. Just leave them be. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > > > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
