What is wrong with the approach we have been using under the osgi module - each Maven module is some subset of core.
Ralph On Mar 31, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > Alright, the basic problem is that each bundle corresponds logically to a > Maven module. Since we have only one log4j-core module with optional > dependencies, that apparently goes completely against how this would normally > be done. Realistically, the better idea would be to split up log4j-core into > logical modules based on optional dependencies (thus making them required) > and then use the maven-shade-plugin to assemble a log4j-core artifact to > avoid having to use multiple JARs in typical environments (or when you aren't > using Maven/Gradle/etc.). It's how most other projects are being organized > nowadays, and that's probably also due to OSGi. > > If we continue with the monolithic log4j-core with optional dependencies, > then creating OSGi versions would require a custom Ant build most likely. In > order to get application servers to upgrade log4j, they'll probably desire > OSGi bundles as all the major app servers use OSGi presently. We don't need > to use anything from OSGi other than using Maven modules logically. If this > is undesired, I don't really know how to provide bundles other than through a > custom build process which would defeat the purpose of using Maven. > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
