Gary, Would you mind changing the epic link of these and future JIRA tickets to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2226 (Log4j core modularization)? That’s a nice way to link them together.
(Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > On Jan 29, 2018, at 6:25, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I should add that each module must have a unique package hierarchy so, in > general, the package names should be org.apache.logging.log4j.modulename. In > this case it would be org.apache.logging.log4j.jeromq.apppender. The mom > package probably has no value. > > Ralph > >> On Jan 28, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> Any component that is not in the core module MUST NOT use the core package. >> That would make it impossible to package them as Java 9 modules. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Jan 28, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Now that the ZeroMQ via JeroMQ support is in its own module log4j-jeromq, I >>> wonder if the Java package should change from >>> >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.mom.jeromq >>> >>> to >>> >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.appender.mom.jeromq >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Same for the recently moved JPA appender. >>> >>> Same for impending move of the Kafka appender. >>> >>> This would break BC for Core for apps that directly reference these >>> classes. As opposed to referencing the appenders from an XML/JSON/YAML >>> config file. >>> >>> Gary >> > >
