At 12:38 AM 2/6/2007, John E. Conlon wrote: >Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > At 11:35 PM 2/5/2007, John E. Conlon wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > >>> There would be a cyclical dependence between > >>> the two jars. > >>> > >> This coupling is what got me thinking about the build time copying of > >> packages I suggested using the plugin. > >> > >>> Do you think that could be a problem? > >>> > >>> > >> Potential concern(S) if we went with this approach. > >> 1. Would we have a build problem with this? Which project would be > >> first to build? > >> > > > > D'oh. You are of course right. I can't believe I missed this. > > > > We could get slf4j-api to compile by providing a bogus project providing > > the classes needed. However, the approach does not seem very elegant and I > > can't think of anything better.
John, I received your signed ICLA by snail mail. Thank you. It would be very nice if you could send your bio along with a picture to be added on a "Who we are" page, similar to what we have at logback: http://logback.qos.ch/team.html Given that there seem to be real demand for a standalone slf4j-api.jar (at compile time), I think I'll attempt to solve it by having slf4j-api depend on a "bootstrap" module, containing a trivial implementation of StaticLoggerBinder, just enough to get slf4j-api to compile. Bindings will need to provide actual real implementation as they do today. I think this little change will make life easier for our users. I'll give it a shot. As usual, we can revert if need be. Cheers, -- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
