I disagree. We already get comaints that the log4j 1.2 bridge requires core. Keeping it separate allows for other implementations. Frankly, I'm not sure the code Matt is talking about is a big enough deal to bother refactoring it.
Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > I haven't looked at the code (don't know how much duplicate code we're > talking about), but in general I would prefer putting shared logic in core, > to keep the published api as small as possible. All the bridge modules need > core to do useful work anyway... > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 2014/09/02, at 5:50, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes exactly. It would be either do that, or make log4j-slf4j-impl and >> log4j-jcl depend on log4j-core. I'm not actually sure why they don't already >> depend on core other than the fact that they can get away without using it. >> >> >>> On 1 September 2014 15:40, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>> So are you suggesting we put the new code in the API SPI package and not in >>> core to avoid dragging in the core jar? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Matt Sicker >>> Date:09/01/2014 14:16 (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Log4J Developers List >>> Subject: Small addition to API suggestion. >>> >>> I'm working on the JDK/JUL bridge again, and I noticed that there's a bit >>> of code duplication occurring in log4j-slf4j-impl as well as log4j-jcl. >>> This duplication is further duplicated in log4j-jdk which I'm working on >>> right now. >>> >>> The duplication is making a weak hash map of LoggerContext to >>> ConcurrentMap<String, L> where L is some external logger class. What I'm >>> proposing is a simple SPI class I've temporarily called >>> ExternalLoggerContextRegistry<L>. The purpose of this interface is to >>> provide a standardized way to keep track of external loggers that are >>> bridged with Log4j loggers. >>> >>> I'll push this work into a branch called LOG4J2-608 which is the JDK >>> logging bridge ticket. Class names are obviously not final. I wanted to put >>> this in core instead of api, but the bridges all use just the API. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
