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 2013/04/10 15:21:44 UTC
Maven Group Ids
Hi All:
I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
<dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api"
rev="2.0-beta4" />
<dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core"
rev="2.0-beta4" />
<dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api"
rev="2.0-beta4" />
it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not
"org.apache.logging.log4j"
What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of
jars, but multiple group ids?
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I do too.
Ralph
On Apr 10, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Nick Williams wrote:
> I like that idea.
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>> I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>
>>> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All:
>>>>
>>>> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>
>>>> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>
>>>> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Yes - the idea was to make it clear what was part of the "core" of Log4j and what are optional add-ons. Obviously, "adapters" is not convey the correct meaning for this and we might not be having this discussion had a better word been chosen. But segmenting the groupId this way probably doesn't do very much to convey this idea as most people only look at the groupId when they get around to creating a pom.xml.
Ralph
On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Nick Williams wrote:
> IIRC, Ralph said having different groupIds did not stop people from using mutually-exclusive components, so I think that's possibly immaterial. At the most it's nice to do before re-merging groupIds, but I don't think it's required before re-merging groupIds.
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>> To get back to the original discussion, would this self-check enable you to revert back to one single group ID?
>>
>> From: Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>> No reason not to have both...
>>
>> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>; Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue themselves without needing to read the docs...
>>
>> For people like me who do read docs, it avoid getting the problem in the first place ;)
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> How about adding this constructor to org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
>>
>> public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
>> // LOG4J2-204 (improve error reporting when misconfigured)
>> try {
>> Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
>> throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
>> "(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from Log4j to SLF4J)");
>> } catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
>> }
>> }
>>
>> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>
>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>> And better documentation would help too :)
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>> I like that idea.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>>> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>>> I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>>
>>> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All:
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>>
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>>
>>>>> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>.
IIRC, Ralph said having different groupIds did not stop people from using mutually-exclusive components, so I think that's possibly immaterial. At the most it's nice to do before re-merging groupIds, but I don't think it's required before re-merging groupIds.
Nick
On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> To get back to the original discussion, would this self-check enable you to revert back to one single group ID?
>
> From: Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> No reason not to have both...
>
> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>; Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue themselves without needing to read the docs...
>
> For people like me who do read docs, it avoid getting the problem in the first place ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
> How about adding this constructor to org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
>
> public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
> // LOG4J2-204 (improve error reporting when misconfigured)
> try {
> Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
> throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
> "(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from Log4j to SLF4J)");
> } catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
> }
> }
>
> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>
> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> And better documentation would help too :)
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> I like that idea.
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>> I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>
>>> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All:
>>>>
>>>> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>
>>>> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>
>>>> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>.
To get back to the original discussion, would this self-check enable you to revert back to one single group ID?
________________________________
From: Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
No reason not to have both...
________________________________
From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>; Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue themselves without needing to read the docs...
For people like me who do read docs, it avoid getting the problem in the first place ;)
Gary
>
>How about adding this constructor to org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
>
> public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
> // LOG4J2-204 (improve error reporting when misconfigured)
> try {
> Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
> throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
> "(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from Log4j to SLF4J)");
> } catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>
>To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
>
>
>And better documentation would help too :)
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
>I like that idea.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>
>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>>About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>>>I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>>>To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>>
>>>
>>>Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hi All:
>>>>>
>>>>>I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>>
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>>
>>>>>Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>>>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>>>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>.
No reason not to have both...
________________________________
From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>; Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue themselves without needing to read the docs...
For people like me who do read docs, it avoid getting the problem in the first place ;)
Gary
>
>How about adding this constructor to org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
>
> public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
> // LOG4J2-204 (improve error reporting when misconfigured)
> try {
> Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
> throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
> "(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from Log4j to SLF4J)");
> } catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>
>To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
>
>
>And better documentation would help too :)
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
>I like that idea.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>
>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>>About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>>>I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>>>To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>>
>>>
>>>Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hi All:
>>>>>
>>>>>I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>>
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>>
>>>>>Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>>>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>>>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue
> themselves without needing to read the docs...
>
For people like me who do read docs, it avoid getting the problem in the
first place ;)
Gary
>
> How about adding this constructor to
> org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
>
> public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
> // LOG4J2-204 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204> (improve
> error reporting when misconfigured)
> try {
> Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
> throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually
> exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
> "(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from
> Log4j to SLF4J)");
> } catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
> }
> }
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> And better documentation would help too :)
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <
> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
> I like that idea.
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception
> from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the
> other jar is on the classpath?
> I just proposed a way to do that in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
> *To:* Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are
> mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl
> and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that
> they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That
> did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be
> the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better
> web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in
> their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest,
> I'm not really sure what would.
>
> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the
> consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that
> after 2.0 GA is released.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not
> "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of
> jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977/>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977/>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>.
True, but if the exception is clear users will be able to fix the issue themselves without needing to read the docs...
How about adding this constructor to org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLoggerContext:
public SLF4JLoggerContext() {
// LOG4J2-204 (improve error reporting when misconfigured)
try {
Class.forName("org.slf4j.helpers.Log4JLoggerFactory");
throw new IllegalStateException("slf4j-impl jar is mutually exclusive with log4j-to-slf4j jar " +
"(the first routes calls from SLF4J to Log4j, the second from Log4j to SLF4J)");
} catch (Throwable classNotFoundIsGood) {
}
}
________________________________
From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
And better documentation would help too :)
Gary
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
I like that idea.
>
>Nick
>
>
>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
>>I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>>To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
>>Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>>
>>
>>I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>>
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>
>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi All:
>>>>
>>>>I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>>
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>>
>>>>Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
And better documentation would help too :)
Gary
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Nick Williams <
nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> I like that idea.
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception
> from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the
> other jar is on the classpath?
> I just proposed a way to do that in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
> *To:* Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are
> mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl
> and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that
> they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That
> did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be
> the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better
> web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in
> their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest,
> I'm not really sure what would.
>
> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the
> consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that
> after 2.0 GA is released.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not
> "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of
> jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977/>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>.
I like that idea.
Nick
On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
> I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
>
>
>
> From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
> To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
>
> I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
>
> Nick
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>>
>> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>>
>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>>
>>> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>>
>>> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@yahoo.com>.
About the mutual exclusivity, would it be an idea to throw an exception from either log4j-slf4j-impl or log4j-to-slf4j when it detects that the other jar is on the classpath?
I just proposed a way to do that in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-204
________________________________
From: Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
To: Log4J Developers List <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: Maven Group Ids
I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
Nick
On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>
>
>I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>
>
>
>Ralph
>
>
>
>On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>Hi All:
>>
>>I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>
>>
>>it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>
>>
>>What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>
>>--
>>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>.
I'm guessing there's no way to tell Maven that two dependencies are mutually exclusive and cannot both be used (for example, log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j)? Because that would be convenient...
Nick
On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
>
> I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>>
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>>
>> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>>
>> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Well, I originally had them all in one groupId but it was suggested that they be split to distinguish core functionality from the extra stuff. That did and still does make sense to me, although using the groupId may not be the best way to distinguish it. It might be done simply through a better web site design. We have had a couple of users now include all the jars in their project. The different groupIds hasn't stopped that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would.
I have no problem switching back to a single groupId if that is the consensus, but we really need to lock that down as we can't be doing that after 2.0 GA is released.
Ralph
On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> I need to do a beta5 release fairly soon. If we are going to change this
> please do it now.
>
> Ralph
>
>
Done.
Gary
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api"
> rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not
> "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of
> jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977/>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
--
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: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I need to do a beta5 release fairly soon. If we are going to change this please do it now.
Ralph
On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Maven Group Ids
Posted by Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>.
On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I find it confusing to have >1 group Id, for example in Ivy, when I tried
>
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-core" rev="2.0-beta4" />
> <dependency org="org.apache.logging.log4j" name="log4j-1.2-api" rev="2.0-beta4" />
>
> it bombed because the 1.2 API is in "org.apache.logging.log4j.adapter" not "org.apache.logging.log4j"
>
> What is the point of this complication? It's bad enough we have a bunch of jars, but multiple group ids?
>
> Gary
I'll chime in to say, as unbinding as it may be, that I agree with Gary. Many more-complex projects have just a single groupId. Seems to me that different group IDs should exist only for unrelated functionality—in my opinion. I'm all for using the same groupId for all artifacts in Log4j 2. When I created the log4j-taglib component, I left it in the main groupId because it didn't belong in adapter (it's not an adapter ... if anything it's just another part of the API, capable of using any implementation that the primary API is capable of using).
It should be noted for anyone not already aware that log4j-1.2-api, log4j-flume-ng, log4j-jcl, and log4j-slf4j-impl all USED to be in the main groupId. They were moved to "adapters" in late 2012.
N