Looks good. I like the arrows.
To reiterate my question about writing a library, in my maven pom.xml
for my library, I should only declare a compile/runtime dependency on
slf4j-api.jar (that is, no scope, just the groupId, artifactId, and
version for slf4j-api), and in my docs explain that if their application
is using commons logging that they should also add slf4j-jcl.jar to
their classpath/dependencies, or if they're logging directly with log4j
then they should add slf4j-log412.jar to their classpath/dependencies,
or if they're logging directly with java.util.logging then they should
add slf4j-jdk14.jar to their classpath/dependencies?
On 2011-08-14 13:56, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Hi all,
I've updated the illustrations taking into account your comments. The
updated files are located at:
http://slf4j.org/images/concrete-bindings.odg
http://slf4j.org/images/concrete-bindings.png
http://slf4j.org/images/legacy.odg
http://slf4j.org/images/legacy.png
The audience for these illustrations are users with little or no prior
understanding of or exposure to SLF4J. More concretely, with the help
of these illustrations, new users should hopefully stop placing
multiple binding artifacts on the class path at the same time.
IMO, the arrows convey useful information with respect to direction of
invocations albeit perhaps in a stylistically inelegant way.
Anyway, your suggestions for further improvements most welcome. In
particular regarding the unification of the stacked and arrowed styles
(if possible).
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
slf4j-user@qos.ch
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
