Hi Ceki, I'm aware of that there had been some discussion - thanks for digging out the links.
Although I'd like to help, I'm not sure if I'm expert enough to offer help on this issue yet - and I admit I haven't yet tried to find a solution. The intent of my email was simply to raise awareness of the OSGi initiative I mentioned, just in case someone does want to solicit their advice. (They can reasonably claim to be OSGi experts, but it'd be interesting to know whether they can find a solution that doesn't break backwards compatibility, and also work outside OSGi.) Regards Martin On 23 January 2013 17:26, ceki <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > Yes, there is a cyclic dependency between the SLF4J API and impls > which is frowned upon by the OSGi community. Proposals for better OSGi > integration are most welcome subject to backward compatibility > restrictions. (Given the wide use of SLF4J we have to be extra-careful > not to break compatibility). > > Thus, modifying the manifest files should probably be OK while changes > in package structure or in classes not OK. > > Have you looked at previous discussions of the subject? See for > example: > > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=283 > > Thank you in advance for your suggestions, > > -- > Ceki > 65% of statistics are made up on the spot > > > On 23.01.2013 12:07, Martin Ellis wrote: >> >> Hi Ceki and others, >> >> I thought you might be interested to know about "Metadata Advice": >> it's an outreach project by folk involved in the OSGi community, who >> are willing to offer advice to people trying to package their software >> so it behaves well in an OSGi environment. >> >> http://blog.osgi.org/2013/01/get-help-adding-osgi-metadata-to-your.html >> >> Since there's been talk on this list of problems due to cyclic >> dependencies between slf4j-api and the logging implementations, I >> thought I'd point it out. Although it's called "Metadata Advice", I >> think they're willing to offer some suggestions for other aspects of >> using OSGi, beyond simply adding manifest headers (which slf4j already >> has). >> >> Perhaps it's worth creating an issue on their bugzilla inviting >> suggestions for improving OSGi support in slf4j? >> >> Regards, >> Martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > slf4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev _______________________________________________ slf4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev
