Hello Jukka,
The core interface in SLF4J, namely the org.sfl4j.Logger, org.slf4j.LoggerFactory class will never change in a disruptive fashion, where a disruptive change is defined as a change adversely affecting the end-user. Considering the following three points, I think that the merge of the MarkingLogger and the Logger interfaces is non-disruptive. 1) The MarkingLogger interface was not used by anyone. Thus, its dissapperance will affect end-users nor bindings of the SLF4J API, e.g. NLOG4J or x4juli. 2) Given their signatures, the newly *added* methods to the Logger interface do not affect existing clients of that interface. However, implementations of the Logger interface need to implement the new methods. This has been done for all bindings shipping with SLF4J as well as NLOG4J. By the way, the change could be applied on 5 different implementations (nop, simple, jdk14, log4j, nlog4j) took about 60 seconds per binding. In principle, it should be easy to apply on x4juli as well. However, good developers such as Boris do not like changes pushed down their throats and I apologize if the change was not sufficiently explained. If there is still interest, I can provide an explanation in a separate message. 3) Since each SLF4J binding contains its own copy of the SLF4J API, it is impossible for an SLF4J binding to raise incompatibility issues. For example, the user will be able to replace NLOG4J version 1.2.21 with a later version of NLOG4J, say 1.2.22, even of 1.2.21 was compiled against SLF4J 1.0RC5 and 1.2.22 against a later version of SLF4J. Your concerns regarding stability of the SLF4J are very understandable. However, I would like to stress that there have not been any disruptive changes in the SLF4J API since June 28th of last year. Moreover, I do not expect any changes (except bug-fixes) in the SLF4J API between the current SVN head and release 1.0. I plan to have version 1.0final released sometime during this month. Subject to Boris' consent, I hope to release 1.0RC6 in the next few days. Cheers, At 11:27 AM 2/2/2006, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > Are there any ideas about the expected timeframe for the SLF4J 1.0 > release? I don't want to push for a premature release, but as Boris > Unckel already suspected, I got a little alarmed by the MarkingLogger > API change in RC5. With the API freeze and the sequence of release > candidates I had implicitly assumed that the official 1.0 release > would happen fairly soon, but RC5 broke this assumption. I'm > interested in the release schedule because I'd like to use SLF4J in > the upcoming 1.0 release of the Apache Jackrabbit project (see > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-215). BR, Jukka Zitting > > -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software > craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development -- Ceki Gülcü _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
