Hmm that's true Logback is under LGPL license. But in this case, Shiro would not be distributing it - it'd be used for development and as such comparable to any other tool used in development. We would specify a dependency to Logback, but in "test" scope, but it would not be packed into any of the Shiro distributed jars and would not be required to use Shiro at runtime.
Kalle On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Craig L Russell<[email protected]> wrote: > Just one observation. > > I understand (from another thread) that the Logback license is such that an > Apache project cannot distribute it (in any form). If this is true, the > Logback implementation jars would not be identified as a dependency. Anyone > who wanted to use it would have to obtain it themselves. > > If this is true, we would need to have an out-of-the-box solution that did > not involve the Logback jars. Pointers on how to obtain, install, and use > Logback with Shiro would be fine. > > Craig > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We've made the move from Log4J at work to Logback with very positive >> results. They work very similarly, but Logback is just more >> 'polished'. >> >> Any objections in getting rid of Log4J in favor of Logback as a >> test/samples dependency? Shiro does not have a logging implementation >> dependency (just SLF4J's API), so this doesn't affect end users - just >> how the developers use logging in test cases. Logback also implements >> the SLF4J API directly, so that means one less dependency in our pom - >> no SLF4J binding implementation .jar necessary. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Les > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >
