[slf4j-dev] Rearranging classes

[John E. Conlon]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> 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
>   
 I'll check with my HR department and get back to you. ;-)
>
> 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,
>   
Look forward to seeing this.

cheers,
John