[slf4j-dev] Rearranging classes

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 12:38 AM 2/6/2007, John E. Conlon wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > At 11:35 PM 2/5/2007, John E. Conlon wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>> There would be a cyclical dependence between
> >>> the two jars.
> >>>
> >> This coupling is what got me thinking about the build time copying of
> >> packages I suggested using the plugin.
> >>
> >>> Do you think that could be a problem?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Potential concern(S) if we went with this approach.
> >> 1.  Would we have a build problem with this?  Which project would be
> >> first to build?
> >>
> >
> > D'oh. You are of course right. I can't believe I missed this.
> >
> > We could get slf4j-api to compile by providing a bogus project providing
> > the classes needed. However, the approach does not seem very elegant and I
> > can't think of anything better.

John,

I received your signed ICLA by snail mail. Thank you. It would be very nice 
if you could send your bio along with a picture to be added on a "Who we 
are" page, similar to what we have at logback:

   http://logback.qos.ch/team.html


Given that there seem to be real demand for a standalone slf4j-api.jar (at 
compile time), I think I'll attempt to solve it by having slf4j-api depend 
on a "bootstrap" module, containing a trivial implementation of 
StaticLoggerBinder, just enough to get slf4j-api to compile. Bindings will 
need to provide actual real implementation as they do today.

I think this little change will make life easier for our users. I'll give 
it a shot. As usual, we can revert if need be.

Cheers,


-- 
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch