[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [orbit-dev] Slf4j into Orbit
|
Hi Thomas,
Getting your slf4j bundle into Orbit seems like a great idea,
especially taking into account that you have already mastered
a roadblock that everyone was likely to run into!
I'm wondering what kinds of org.slf4j.impl implementations
you have already finished for Buckminster?
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you say about the extension
point. given that slf4j is quite low-level, doesn't that
introduce an unwanted dependency on the Eclipse plugin
registry? Would it make sense to consider using an OSGi
Service instead? [haven't done that myself so far, though].
My other thought is, is the circular dependency really a problem
for a user of the pre-built binary slf4j? I'd think that when
I have a circular dependency, and one part of the circle is
already built, fixed and unchangeable, the circle should break
by itself since it always ends at the pre-built item?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Hallgren
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:23 AM
> To: Orbit Developer discussion
> Subject: Re: [orbit-dev] Slf4j into Orbit
>
> Hi,
> I've been using SLF4J for Buckminster. We encountered a
> problem with it
> in that it introduces a circular dependency on package level.
>
> SLF4J exports an API package and imports an SPI. An implementor must
> import the API and export the SPI. The circular dependency is
> a fact and
> this cannot be used in Eclipse 3.3.1.1
>
> In order to work around this, I created a new bundle called
> org.slf4j.extendable. It exports the API but it implements the SPI by
> itself. The implementation is an abstraction that expects an
> implementor
> to extend the extension point 'org.slf4j.impl' It bundles
> only the API
> part of the SLF4J and only as a binary so no alterations were made on
> existing code.
>
> I'd be happy to submit this to Orbit (doing so was in the back of my
> mind when I created this bundle).
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
>
>
> t assumes that another package implements (and imports) an
> spi package
> that it then exports. It imports
> Simon Kaegi wrote:
> > SLF4J is quite an interesting library in that it provides a
> relatively OSGi
> > friendly logging facade. I've already gone through the
> initial CQ round
> > here when I was experimenting with an updated OSGi logging story.
> > I didn't move this into Orbit simple because I haven't had
> time to really
> > make use of it. The approved version was from about a year
> ago so there
> > maybe value in doing an update.
> >
> > As an aside you mention Jetty 6 -- we just got approval for
> Jetty 6.1.7 and
> > Servlet 2.5.
> > We also have signoff to update the exisiting Jetty to 5.1.14.
> > These will be coming soon to Orbit.
> >
> > I believe Jetty 6.1.7 has dropped the SLF4J dependency so
> barring any
> > unforseen problems I'm not planning on adding SLF4J to
> Orbit for now.
> > Feel free to go ahead yourself.
> >
> > -Simon
> >
> > orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/24/2008 10:21:52 AM:
> >
> >
> >> It doesn't hurt to try if you need it, so +1
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | http://mea-bloga.
> >> blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> From:
> >>
> >> "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> To:
> >>
> >> "Orbit Developer discussion" <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Date:
> >>
> >> 01/24/2008 07:22 AM
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >>
> >> [orbit-dev] Slf4j into Orbit
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> has anybody considered getting Slf4j into Orbit yet?
> >>
> >> It looks like Slf4j ("Simple Logging Facade for Java") is
> a prerequisite
> >> for lots of other libraries, including Jackrabbit which
> I'm considering
> >> for WebDAV support, and Jetty6 which the Platform or
> Equinox might be
> >> interested in at some point.
> >> http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
> >>
> >> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/doc/components/webdav.html
> >>
> >> They have a specific license which they claim to be
> identical to the MIT
> >> license and deemed to be compatible with virtually all types of
> >> licenses:
> >> http://www.slf4j.org/license.html
> >>
> >> So there might be a good chance to get it approved for Eclipse.
> >>
> >> I don't think I need this immediately, but given that the Ganymede
> >> Cutoff date is Jan.31 I was wondering whether it might be
> a good idea to
> >> get this on the plate. What do you folks think?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> --
> >> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
> >> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> >> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> orbit-dev mailing list
> >> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> orbit-dev mailing list
> >> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > orbit-dev mailing list
> > orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> orbit-dev mailing list
> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
>
