[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [orbit-dev] Logback slf4j impl 1.0.3
|
>I'm not sure on this one. IMHO there is no technical need for a new
>bundle. However, for consistency/easy-of-verification reasons it might
>make sense to add the bundle.
I also think that there is no need for a new bundle.
David, what do you think? Is it necessary for consistency (there are ch.qos.logback.slf4j 0.9.27 and 1.0.0 in Orbit) to add ch.qos.logback.slf4j_1.0.3 bundle, although it will export the same packages with the same version, 1.6.4, as ch.qos.logback.slf4j_1.0.0 bundle?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Wagenknecht [mailto:gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Kirchev, Lazar
Cc: orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Logback slf4j impl 1.0.3
Am 23.08.2012 14:18, schrieb Kirchev, Lazar:
> Since the version for 1.0.3 is the same, does it make sense to add to
> Orbit bundle ch.qos.logback.slf4j_1.0.3, differing from
> ch.qos.logback.slf4j_1.0.0 only by the bundle version?
I'm not sure on this one. IMHO there is no technical need for a new
bundle. However, for consistency/easy-of-verification reasons it might
make sense to add the bundle.
> Or, to add Loback classic with the slf4j implementation contained in its
> bundle?
The Logback+SLF4J bundles follow a different approach in Orbit in order
to avoid a cyclic dependency issue between SLF4J and any implementation.
The lockback.slf4j bundle is actually a fragment to the slf4j.api
bundle. It delivers the implementation as a fragment to SLF4J. I'd
prefer to keep it that way.
-Gunnar
--
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/
