[slf4j-dev] jcl-over-slf4j module not building

[John E. Conlon]

Hi Jake,

That is an interesting thought.  Adding the nop bindings to the 
slf4j-api.jar.  Which is just what we did with the nop bindings - added 
the classes from the slf4j-api.  

> With this setup, a user can depend on 
> slf4j-api.jar and be done.  Only if logging is 
> desired would one need to add a binding that actually performs logging.
Turning this around a bit.  -  For the 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT (at this time) - a 
user can depend on the slf4j-nop.jar and be done.  Only if logging is 
desired would one need to replace that jar with a binding that actually 
preforms logging.

I apologize  for not taking part in the discussion about the Service 
API.  With this release I have focused on the OSGi runtime requirements 
for slf4j plugin functionality.  IMHO they are very similar.

So allow me to investigate some more before I comment further.

kind regards,
John



Jacob Kjome wrote:
> Of course with the Service API that Eric Crahen 
> is pushing, the NOP implementation could be used 
> as the default fallback binding, packaged into 
> the slf4j-api.jar, and chosen if no other binding 
> is made available by the user.  This would have following benefits...
>
> 1.  Remove the imposition of forcing a user to 
> provide a separate SLF4J binding jar, since the 
> default do-nothing binding would be used as a 
> fallback if no other binding is provided.
>
> 2.  Remove the imposition of logging when it is 
> not desired, and without having to actively provide slf4j-nop.jar
>
> 3.  Remove the necessity of generating 
> slf4j-nop.jar, as it would already be part of slf4j-api.jar
>
> 4.  Reduce user confusion.  Instructions now read:
>
> "To satisfy an SLF4J dependency, simply put 
> slf4j-api.jar in the classpath.  Optionally, to 
> get logging output, add an SLF4J implementation 
> binding in the classpath alongside slf4j-api.jar."
>
>
> With this setup, a user can depend on 
> slf4j-api.jar and be done.  Only if logging is 
> desired would one need to add a binding that actually performs logging.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jake
>