While we use slf4j-api 1.7.x, I'm totally ok with a 2.x upgrade, although it'd be best if the dependency wasn't seen by the apps somehow. I know that's a lot of classloader acrobatics :)
Just to clarify though, the upstream dependencies are or are not including logback? If they are including logback, that transitive dependency ought to be blocked... it's up to the final developer to decide which binding implementation to use. Including a binding (over the default sysout binding) would likely cause problems for users. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:58 AM Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All > > There's a couple of suggestions I'd like to run past the group to see if > there's any thoughts / potential issues. > > The first is: updating to SLF4J 2.x API and JUL implementation > (specifically 2.0.9) in TomEE. There's a couple of rationale here: > > - The 1.x branch of SLF4J is no longer maintained > - At least one of the bindings (Logback) requires a SLF4J 2.x API for > Jakarta EE support > > Secondly, thanks to this bit of code in the class loader: > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/main/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/util/classloader/URLClassLoaderFirst.java#L600-L619, > it is possible for a webapp to include its own SLF4J API and binding in its > WEB-INF/lib to use its own logging config. With SLF4J 2.x, > org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class is not included with the binders, > nor is it called, so shouldSkipSlf4j() returns true, even when SLF4J and a > binder is present in the web app. Simply removing this method, and the > single place it is called seems to enable the web app to do its own logging > with its own binder. > > I've run a TCK build with both of these changes present, and it looks ok. > Does anyone have any feedback with respect to these proposals? Is anyone > out there using SLF4J in their applications with these versions of TomEE > who would be impacted? > > Thanks > > Jon -- Jonathan | [email protected] Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half full. Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
