The great thing about open source is that someone can republish the code as smaller artifacts, if they choose. I don't think log4j should pick up this slack unless someone's experiment proves extremely beneficial. We can always backport someone's good ideas once proven. :-) I will take a wait-and-see approach and leave it to the module experts to prove their idea.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>wrote: > The benefit of not having all of these OSGi modules is that it makes Log4J > "lighter" and more approachable. > > Gary > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Resist splitting things up unless there's a clear distinguishing benefit. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today some people want to slice and dice log4j 2 into ever finer OSGI >>> bundles. Tomorrow, people will want to do the same with whatever Oracle >>> comes up with in project Jigsaw. Some people don't care for OSGi support. >>> >>> This is bound to be a big mess. >>> >>> Therefore I'd like to propose to split off OSGi and later Jigsaw into a >>> separate project(s). This way people who care about OSGi can do all that >>> they need without polluting the main log4j project with dozens of Maven >>> modules. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Gary >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- Cheers, Paul
