Ah, interesting. I didn't realize it wasn't Apache licensed - sorry. But as Kalle said, we wouldn't be distributing it. This is the same condition that we had with the Google Syntax Highlighter[1] usage question that was raised (and approved) by the Incubator a while ago.
As far as every developer getting it and installing it - that's handled automatically by Maven since it would be declared in the pom.xml file - it is in the M2 central repo to be pulled as soon as the build needs it (surely just listing an LGPL file name in a pom does not constitute 'distributing', right?). Is that good enough? If considered too much of a hassle, I'm fine w/ retaining Log4J - I was just trying to clean things up/simplify them a bit if possible. Cheers, Les [1] http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/ On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Craig L Russell<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kalle, > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > >> 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. > > But that means that every developer would need to get it and install it. Why > make it a dependency at all? IIUC it doesn't have an API of its own. If > developers want to install and use it then they can. > > Craig > >> >> 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! >>> >>> > > 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! > >
