We can move the spi package content in main to a separate module in main. SPI problem is solved?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 18:33, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > I suspect this won’t work that well once I’ve implemented > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/1977 as the current > provider SPI is fairly lacking. It might make more sense to release the > main API as 3.0.0 and have 2.x depend on the updated API. > > > On Jan 17, 2024, at 10:11 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > > > Given Ralph and Piotr are strongly opinionated about keeping > > `log4j-api-3.x` binary compatible to `log4j-api-2.x`, can we not release > > `log4j-api-3.x` in `main` and make `main` only depend on `log4j-api-2.x` > > instead? (We can move the contents of the `spi` package in > `log4j-api-3.x` > > to a separate `log4j-spi` module in `main`.) This will make everything > > crystal clear: > > > > - Log4j 3 is just a major improvement over the backend > > - Log4j 3 still supports Log4j 2 API > > - We can move the Log4j 2 API to a separate repository with its own > > release life cycle (ala SLF4J) > > - When time comes to make a new Log4j API where PMC agrees to make > > breaking changes, we can call that one Log4j 3 API > > > > I would appreciate it if you can help me to understand if I am > > missing something. Otherwise, I would like to know why we need to make a > > major release for a project that is identical to its previous version. > >
