Hi Niclas, switching to 2.0 sounds quite good also by renaming the implementation. This way it is quite obvious to everybody that this is a log4j implementation. So if a another implementation is needed (like logback :-) ) another implementation is needed too :-)
regards, Achim 2011/5/29 Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]>: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'd say a new artifact. >> In Pax Web we do have also a SPI bundle which looks like it >> grew over time with additional stuff. >> >> so +1 for new Artefact > > I kind of agree, except that it introduces a small incompatibility. > One must have the SPI bundle installed as well, which means that it is > not a simple 'version' change to get the new feature. > > However, this could be seen as 'small enough' OR we could say that we > will go with a 2.0 release with an additional change; > * "Pax Logging Service" is renamed to "Pax Logging - Log4J Backend" > so that a "Pax Logging - LogBack Backend" is treated on equal grounds > and people have no default choice. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- -- *Achim Nierbeck* Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
