Hi Les, On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
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?
Yes. As long as we never distribute Logback (including checking it into the shiro repository) it's ok to put it into the pom.xml as a test dependency.
Craig
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, Shirowould not be distributing it - it'd be used for development and as such comparable to any other tool used in development. We wouldspecify a dependency to Logback, but in "test" scope, but it would notbe 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. Ifdevelopers want to install and use it then they can. CraigKalleOn 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 thatanApache 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 thatdidnot involve the Logback jars. Pointers on how to obtain, install, and useLogback 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 positiveresults. They work very similarly, but Logback is just more 'polished'. Any objections in getting rid of Log4J in favor of Logback as atest/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? LesCraig 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!
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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
