Re: [orbit-dev] SLF4J Bundle Naming Question

[Simon Kaegi <Simon_Kaegi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

org.slf4j.jcl
org.slf4j.jul
org.slf4j.log4j
org.slf4j.ext

For those that might not know SLF4J is packaged as OSGi bundles however the BSNs are not named in a standard way.
e.g.
 slfj.api
 jcl.over.slf4j
 slf4j.jdk14
 slfj.log4j12
 slf4j.ext

I think we might still want to use these bundles despite their BSN as is. Alternately find out if Ceki and co. might be willing to change the BSNs to something more standard and then use those new and improved names.

-Simon







Gunnar Wagenknecht ---01/12/2010 03:07:46 PM---Hi Orbit Committers, I'm in the process of updating SLF4J API to 1.5.10. I also have

From:	Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	01/12/2010 03:07 PM
Subject:	[orbit-dev] SLF4J Bundle Naming Question
Sent by:	orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi Orbit Committers,

I'm in the process of updating SLF4J API to 1.5.10. I also have
submitted CQs to add some of the SLF4J wrappers/adapters/integration
pieces for other log systems to Orbit as well.

I need your opinion/advice on the bundle naming.


What we have today:

SLF4J API
 - main package: "org.slf4j"
 - bsn: "org.slf4j.api"


The following new packages need to be "orbit-tified":

SLF4J jcl-over-slf4j
 - main package: "org.apache.commons.logging"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.jcl"
 - bsn?: "org.apache.commons.logging.slf4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.org.apache.commons.logging"

SLF4J jul-to-slf4j
 - main package: "org.slf4j.bridge"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.jul"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.bridge"

SLF4J log4j-over-slf4j
 - main package: "org.apache.log4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.log4j"
 - bsn?: "org.apache.log4j.slf4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.org.apache.log4j"

SLF4J EXT
 - main package: "org.slf4j.ext"
 - bsn: "org.slf4j.ext"


AFAIK the EXT package is simple. There is no other option. From my
feeling I tend to always prefer the first options. I think it gives a
stronger indication of the grouping of those bundles, i.e. they just
belong together.

What's also possible is the second option for *-over-slf4j. It's based
on
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Bundle_Naming#Issue_3_:_Distinguishing_different_implementations
But I don't know if that would cause too much confusion.

However, I'm a bit lost with the "jul-to-slf4j" bundle. The package name
really just doesn't fit with the bsn. But on the other hand, the package
name doesn't mean anything. There could be other "bridges" in the future
as well. This would open the door for split-packages if the SLF4J team
places them into the same package. Don't like that path.

What are your thoughts?

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev