Thanks for the picture @aaronlindsey! I think we are on the same page regarding the end result. Currently in the GEODE-7177 PR we have moved select classes which depend on log4j into geode-logging, but now that seems a bit odd since those should really be in geode-log4j (as they are in this PR). I think we should get this PR merged in, then take another pass at getting the membership logging dependencies into geode-logging without moving any log4j related stuff.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4003 ] This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for notifications@geode.apache.org
