You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2014/03/13 21:32:59 UTC
BOM module?
Hi All,
So, do we really need the BOM module?
It seems superfluous.
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Bruce Brouwer <br...@gmail.com>.
I still like the BOM. You are right that there is not any use if you're
only importing one log4j artifact, but I could bury this inside the
dependencyManagement section of one of my parent poms and not worry about
what piece of log4j any child poms were referencing; they would just all
get the version of log4j that my parent pom prescribes.
And why get rid of it? It is already finished. Also, it is a pattern that
is emerging in a bunch of projects; and I find it useful.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, I just noticed that log4j-flume-ng already includes those
> dependencies. I guess the BOM isn't so useful now. I think a BOM will be
> useful for the OSGi bundles later on, but that's only if we generate a
> bunch of separate bundles.
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 16:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume you are referring to the log4j dependencies only? The other
>> jars are to route SL4J, Commons Logging and Log4j 1.2 through Log4j 2. As
>> I recall that isn't required, but it makes sense to me to only have a
>> single logging framework handling logging.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You
>> should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender's
>> dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its
>> dependencies are optional.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm
>> playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already
>> ridiculous without adding anything else.
>>
>>
>> On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>>>
>>> It seems superfluous.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
Bruce Brouwer
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Oh, I just noticed that log4j-flume-ng already includes those dependencies.
I guess the BOM isn't so useful now. I think a BOM will be useful for the
OSGi bundles later on, but that's only if we generate a bunch of separate
bundles.
On 13 March 2014 16:40, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I assume you are referring to the log4j dependencies only? The other jars
> are to route SL4J, Commons Logging and Log4j 1.2 through Log4j 2. As I
> recall that isn’t required, but it makes sense to me to only have a single
> logging framework handling logging.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You
> should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender’s
> dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its
> dependencies are optional.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm
> playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already
> ridiculous without adding anything else.
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>>
>> It seems superfluous.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I assume you are referring to the log4j dependencies only? The other jars are to route SL4J, Commons Logging and Log4j 1.2 through Log4j 2. As I recall that isn’t required, but it makes sense to me to only have a single logging framework handling logging.
Ralph
On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender’s dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its dependencies are optional.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already ridiculous without adding anything else.
>>
>>
>> On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>>
>> It seems superfluous.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Then what's with this?
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/log4j-flume-ng/index.html
On 13 March 2014 15:55, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You
> should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender’s
> dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its
> dependencies are optional.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm
> playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already
> ridiculous without adding anything else.
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>>
>> It seems superfluous.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Why do you say that? I never had a problem that the BOM would help. You should only need the api, core and flume appender. As for the Appender’s dependencies, that is fun because there are 3 flavors so a bunch of its dependencies are optional.
Ralph
On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already ridiculous without adding anything else.
>
>
> On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>
> It seems superfluous.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: BOM module?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I think the BOM module might be more useful for the Flume appender. I'm
playing with that right now, and my dependencies section is already
ridiculous without adding anything else.
On 13 March 2014 15:32, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So, do we really need the BOM module?
>
> It seems superfluous.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>