On 2/19/07, Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do not wish to hide behind backward-compatibility excuses. We finally have a nice and clear separation between slf4j-api and slf4j-binding. Let's keep it clean and simple even if it costs an extra jar on the class path. [1] http://www.qos.ch/pipermail/logback-user/2007-February/000129.html
So we still do have a weak coupling thats based on contract rather than an interface in order to plug various logging implementations in. In that respect I'm not sure the separation is nice and clean. Also, the opportunity isn't there with the static binding solution to actually report potential errors in configuration w/o the Service API. It simplifies a build, and it reduces the opportunity for error for new logger implementation writers. Is there any actual technical reason the Service API is not being used? On a technical basis, it has advantages the other solution does not and it seems like there is just some general fear about because its description involved the word "ClassLoader". -- - Eric
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
