> On Jan 18, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 18, 2024, at 5:37 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>>
>> If we
>>
>> 1. move all non-API (`AbstractLogger`, `PropertiesUtil`, etc.) classes
>> in `log4j-api-3.x` to a new `log4j-spi-3.x` module, and
>> 2. Only implement `log4j-api-2.x` *interfaces* (not abstract classes!)
>> in `log4j-core`
>>
>> we can have a Log4j 3 without a `log4j-api-3.x` module, right?
>
> Spring uses PropertiesUtil. I suspect it isn’t alone. That would mean
> anything impacted by the property changes would have to be in the spi or
> abstracted to reference something in the spi. I am assuming a log4j-spi-2.x
> would also be needed. There are many other utility classes that have never
> been off limits for users to use.
>
> While your idea could work it definitely would impact some users.
Note that LogManager has
import org.apache.logging.log4j.simple.SimpleLoggerContextFactory;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContextFactory;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggingSystem;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.Terminable;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.status.StatusLogger;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.util.StackLocatorUtil;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Strings;
That would require users to have the SPI would it not?
Ralph
