Oh, I just noticed that log4j-flume-ng already includes those dependencies. I guess the BOM isn't so useful now. I think a BOM will be useful for the OSGi bundles later on, but that's only if we generate a bunch of separate bundles.
On 13 March 2014 16:40, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume you are referring to the log4j dependencies only? The other jars > are to route SL4J, Commons Logging and Log4j 1.2 through Log4j 2. As I > recall that isn’t required, but it makes sense to me to only have a single > logging framework handling logging. > > Ralph > > > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You > should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender’s > dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its > dependencies are optional. > > Ralph > > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm > playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already > ridiculous without adding anything else. > > > On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> So, do we really need the BOM module? >> >> It seems superfluous. >> >> Gary >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
