Ceki Gülcü wrote: > 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 > I'll check with my HR department and get back to you. ;-) > > 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, > Look forward to seeing this.
cheers, John _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
