HTH
> Tamas
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:04 PM Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Given the javadoc generation is an important part of software projects,
>> maybe someone would care to comment whether the behavior described below
>> is expec
/sponsors/qos-ch
On 12/23/2023 9:34 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to share what looks to me like an unexpected behavior of
> the javadoc plugin, more specifically when run as javadoc:aggregate.
>
>
> The SLF4J project uses the "Refining the BOM Pa
Hello,
I would like to share what looks to me like an unexpected behavior of
the javadoc plugin, more specifically when run as javadoc:aggregate.
The SLF4J project uses the "Refining the BOM Pattern" variant as
explained in Garret Wilson's "Improving the BOM Pattern" [1]. More
specifically,
Scholte wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:40:51 +0100, Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch> wrote:
Hello all,
The logback project, more specifically logback-classic, offers the
possibility of configuration via a script written in Groovy. Thus,
logback-classic has source files written in Java and a few
Hello all,
The logback project, more specifically logback-classic, offers the
possibility of configuration via a script written in Groovy. Thus,
logback-classic has source files written in Java and a few source files
in Groovy.
While attempting to (Jigsaw) modularize the logback project, I
Lucas Bergman wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
That is your problem. What this does is mess the dependency-tree. It
removes commons-logging from the dependency tree because that
version 99.0-... is larger than the latest current release of
commons-logging. The 99.0-... version should *never
I forgot to mention that my tests were conducted using Maven 2.0.9. I will redo
the tests with Maven 2.2.0.
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Lucas Bergman wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
That is your problem. What this does is mess the dependency-tree. It
removes commons-logging from the dependency
version 99).
In summary, there is strong evidence that common-logging 99 is not the
culprit here.
Can it be that the various dependencies, some in test scope and some
in runtime scope, are confusing Maven's dependency resolution
mechanism?
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Lucas Bergman wrote:
Dennis Lundberg
Jörg Schaible wrote:
You've been right, I should have read your question closer. See Dennis'
answer. Actually there was an attempt to release an official empty
commons-logging at Apache recently and it was tunred down exactly because
we could foresee this problem you're facing now :-/
Note
About slf4j complaining about multiple configuration files present in
the CP, I suppose it must be possible to overcome this
complaining. But what is annoying to me is that these redundant files
are included when they should not, because from a logical point of
view project C does not need
Olivier,
Since projects A and B seem to be just artifacts, I am still wondering
why projects A and B need a configuration file for logging. If it is
for testing purposes, why not use logback-text.xml and place it under
/src/test/resources/ directory?
--
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable,
11 matches
Mail list logo
