[slf4j-dev] "Metadata Advice"

[Martin Ellis]

Hi Ceki,

I'm aware of that there had been some discussion - thanks for digging
out the links.

Although I'd like to help, I'm not sure if I'm expert enough to offer
help on this issue yet - and I admit I haven't yet tried to find a
solution. The intent of my email was simply to raise awareness of the
OSGi initiative I mentioned, just in case someone does want to solicit
their advice.

(They can reasonably claim to be OSGi experts, but it'd be interesting
to know whether they can find a solution that doesn't break backwards
compatibility, and also work outside OSGi.)

Regards
Martin


On 23 January 2013 17:26, ceki <ceki at qos.ch> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> Yes, there is a cyclic dependency between the SLF4J API and impls
> which is frowned upon by the OSGi community. Proposals for better OSGi
> integration are most welcome subject to backward compatibility
> restrictions. (Given the wide use of SLF4J we have to be extra-careful
> not to break compatibility).
>
> Thus, modifying the manifest files should probably be OK while changes
> in package structure or in classes not OK.
>
> Have you looked at previous discussions of the subject? See for
> example:
>
>   http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
>   http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=283
>
> Thank you in advance for your suggestions,
>
> --
> Ceki
> 65% of statistics are made up on the spot
>
>
> On 23.01.2013 12:07, Martin Ellis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ceki and others,
>>
>> I thought you might be interested to know about "Metadata Advice":
>> it's an outreach project by folk involved in the OSGi community, who
>> are willing to offer advice to people trying to package their software
>> so it behaves well in an OSGi environment.
>>
>> http://blog.osgi.org/2013/01/get-help-adding-osgi-metadata-to-your.html
>>
>> Since there's been talk on this list of problems due to cyclic
>> dependencies between slf4j-api and the logging implementations, I
>> thought I'd point it out. Although it's called "Metadata Advice", I
>> think  they're willing to offer some suggestions for other aspects of
>> using OSGi, beyond simply adding manifest headers (which slf4j already
>> has).
>>
>> Perhaps it's worth creating an issue on their bugzilla inviting
>> suggestions for improving OSGi support in slf4j?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> slf4j-dev mailing list
> slf4j-dev at qos.ch
> http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev