> On Jan 22, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 January 2018 at 13:48, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I don’t see why this work would require 3.0 as we aren’t planning on >>> breaking any contracts to do this. >>> >> >> I'm referring to something more in line with past proposals of having a >> sort of log4j-core-api or similar which is essentially just the different >> plugin APIs along with the plugin loader API, and log4j-core would contain >> the most commonly used plugins (file, console, meta appenders, filters, >> layouts). This is an orthogonal idea to what we're trying to solve, though. >> > > I'm not only worried about that but also ending up with some brittle > dependency chain like: > > log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 > depends on log4j-jdbc (does not exist yet) depends on log4j-core depends on > log4j-api. Today this works out of the box.
That dependency chain exists regardless of whether the module is part of the main build or part of some other build. Ralph
