You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jackrabbit.apache.org by Michael Neale <mi...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/24 06:55:09 UTC
1.3 maven packaging - missing Log4J etc?
I may be jumping the gun, but I just tried upgrading to 1.3, and it doesn't
include Log4j or SL4j in the dependencies, yet this is needed (at least) by
TransientRepository - an oversight or am I doing something wrong?
Michael.
PS its nice that a mavenised release going out with the main one ! makes
upgrading a breeze !
Re: 1.3 maven packaging - missing Log4J etc?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 4/24/07, Michael Neale <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> right - so I can switch logging implementations by just choosing them -
> cool.
Exactly. :-)
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: 1.3 maven packaging - missing Log4J etc?
Posted by Michael Neale <mi...@gmail.com>.
right - so I can switch logging implementations by just choosing them -
cool.
On 4/24/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/24/07, Michael Neale <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I may be jumping the gun, but I just tried upgrading to 1.3, and it
> doesn't
> > include Log4j or SL4j in the dependencies, yet this is needed (at least)
> by
> > TransientRepository - an oversight or am I doing something wrong?
>
> We've upgraded to a more recent SLF4J version that is split to
> separate api and implementation dependencies. The slf4j-api dependency
> is in the compile scope, but the log4j binding, slf4j-log4j12, is not.
> The idea is that we don't want to default everyone to use log4j, and
> that users should select which binding they want to use.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: 1.3 maven packaging - missing Log4J etc?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 4/24/07, Michael Neale <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I may be jumping the gun, but I just tried upgrading to 1.3, and it doesn't
> include Log4j or SL4j in the dependencies, yet this is needed (at least) by
> TransientRepository - an oversight or am I doing something wrong?
We've upgraded to a more recent SLF4J version that is split to
separate api and implementation dependencies. The slf4j-api dependency
is in the compile scope, but the log4j binding, slf4j-log4j12, is not.
The idea is that we don't want to default everyone to use log4j, and
that users should select which binding they want to use.
BR,
Jukka Zitting