[logback-user] Minimal library dependency for logback implementation of RequestLogImpl

Ceki Gulcu ceki at qos.ch
Fri Jan 23 16:16:59 CET 2009

Russell E Glaue wrote:
> Okay then, this is great.
> Then despite the fact that both Geronimo and Jetty do not implement the latest
> slf4j, they can implement the latest logback-core/access.
> I have already requested that Jetty implement the latest 1.5.6 of slf4j, it is
> in issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JETTY-865
> I will do the same for Geronimo.

Thank you.

> But since logback-core/access is not tied in dependency to slf4j, I can request
> the upgrade for slf4j and support for logback both at the same time.


> And when slf4j web site (http://www.slf4j.org/) lists, on the left side, that
> logback is a native implementation, it is referring to logback-classic only as
> the native implementation of slf4j. So I would assume logback-classic does have
> a dependency on slf4j since it is performing native implementation of it.

That is correct.

> Since we are on this topic, can you answer the same question in regards to
> logback-classic:
>  Can any application use slf4j 1.3.1 OR slf4j 1.4.3 libraries, and
>  then at the same time use logback-classic 0.9.14 libraries without
>  any problems? Or will there be a dependency conflict?
>  In other words, is logback-classic dependent on slf4j?

Logback-classic depends on slf4j-api, since it is an implementation of that API. 
In SLF4J-speak, logback-classic is a binding for the SLF4J API, the same way as 
slf4j-simple or slf4j-log412. See the "slf4j-api version does not match that of 
the binding" entry in SLF4J's error code explanation page: 

You might also want to read:


> -RG
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.

More information about the Logback-user mailing list