Hi Matt, On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, after looking at the list of who makes up the main OSGi Alliance, > I'm not surprised. I am surprised, however, that Apache is not part of the > OSGi Alliance despite hosting like half of the open source OSGi projects out > there.
The Apache Software Foundation is a shell for projects and does not involve itself in technical matters. See http://apache.org/foundation/ for more details. As a matter of fact, there are ASF committers and members part of the OSGi alliance. Any interested individuals are welcome to join and - to my knowledge - input related to the specifications can be offered without being a member of the OSGi alliance. Robert (with no formal participation in the OSGi alliance) > > On 6 April 2017 at 16:25, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm honestly surprised that there was no collaboration between SLF4J or >> Log4j about this considering most implementations of the service will end up >> delegating to Log4j2 or Logback most likely (see pax-logging for example). >> >> On 6 April 2017 at 13:58, BJ Hargrave <hargr...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> It is indeed a service. The spec writing for these changes are not in the >>> draft spec so you can see >>> https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfcs/rfc0219/rfc-0219-LogService-Update.pdf >>> for some more detail/background on the change. >>> >>> >>> Also see https://github.com/osgi/slf4j-osgi which holds an slf4j binding >>> to the new Log Service. >>> -- >>> >>> BJ Hargrave >>> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM // office: +1 386 848 1781 >>> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance // mobile: +1 386 848 3788 >>> hargr...@us.ibm.com >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original message ----- >>> From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> Sent by: osgi-dev-boun...@mail.osgi.org >>> To: OSGi Developer Mail List <osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org> >>> Cc: >>> Subject: Re: [osgi-dev] Log Service Specification Version 1.4 doubt >>> Date: Thu, Apr 6, 2017 2:11 PM >>> >>> As long as LoggerFactory is a service and not a static singleton like in >>> SLF4J and Log4j2, then the API makes sense in an OSGi context. If it's yet >>> another static factory, then I'd promote the use of Log4j2 instead as we >>> don't need yet another logging facade. >>> >>> On 6 April 2017 at 12:27, Cristiano Gavião <cvgav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was reading today the early draft of compendium 7.0.0. >>> >>> I saw two interfaces that caught my attention: LoggerFactory and Logger. >>> >>> could someone explain me the idea behind them? why not >>> importing/extending interfaces from org.slf4j.api instead? >>> >>> If I understood it right, LoggerFactory is aimed to be used as a service, >>> but I wondering, it would be possible to obtain a Logger from the factory >>> statically as well as we do when using sfl4j/logback on non-service classes? >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Cristiano >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSGi Developer Mail List >>> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org >>> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSGi Developer Mail List >>> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org >>> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSGi Developer Mail List >>> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org >>> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev -- http://robert.muntea.nu/ _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
