On 11 October 2012 10:30, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 11 October 2012 10:19, ceki <c...@qos.ch> wrote: > >> On 11.10.2012 10:24, Anders Hammar wrote: >> >>> Just to get this clear in my head: >>> When you're talking about "slf4j dependency" in a plugin, are you >>> talking about dependency to slf4j-api or an slf4j impl? >>> >> >> A plugin declaring a dependency on slf4j-api without declaring a >> dependency on an implementation does not makes sense imo. It follows >> that the term "declaring a dependency on slf4j" means a dependency on >> both slf4j-api as well as a binding, aka implementation. >> > > SINCE 1.6.0 As of SLF4J version 1.6, in the absence of a binding, SLF4J > will default to a no-operation (NOP) logger implementation. > > A plugin might just want to shunt the logs to null and so use the > side-effect of the NOP logger > Note I am not saying that the above is a good idea... just that it might be the kind of crazy idea loved by superstitious developers [ http://blog.activelylazy.co.uk/2012/10/09/knowledge-vs-superstition/ ] > > >> /Anders >>> >> >> -- >> Ceki >> 65% of statistics are made up on the spot >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> >
