Hi, On 2/16/07, Eric Crahen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I said, deploying the correct implementation jar IS a kind of > configuration, weather you call it that or not.
Exactly, and I think this should be the *only* configuration SLF4J would ever need. Any solution that requires extra configuration properties or explicit precedence settings is IMHO too much. The fact that SLF4J always uses the implementation jar that is first available in the classloading hierarchy is simple and easy to understand. I don't see any good use cases that would require anything more complex. The ServiceFactory approach sounds like a good solution to the compile-time issues you mentioned earlier, but I think it should only be used to duplicate the current runtime behaviour without any extra configuration options or even the misconfiguration heuristics you suggested. BR, Jukka Zitting _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
