On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's rather limiting. Here's what we're already using: >> >> * java.compiler: annotation processing (could potentially be split, but >> this situation is already confusing enough for users) >> * java.management: JMX >> * java.naming: JNDI >> * java.scripting: javascript/groovy/etc plugins >> * java.xml: XML configuration parsing >> > > Also, some low hanging fruits: > > * java.sql: for JDBC > Speaking of java.sql (and javax.sql): How can we get the Maven build to FAIL if log4-core Java codes uses java[x].sql code? Gary > * JMS depends on a Java EE API jar. > > Gary > > >> I may have missed some others, but it may be difficult to trim it down to >> just java.base. Even with some of the simpler ones, we'll end up with >> several additional modules to detangle that. >> >> If we could include multiple logical modules in a single physical module, >> then this wouldn't be as tedious. >> >> On 27 January 2018 at 20:01, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Also, in Java 9 it must only require the java.base module. >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > > On Jan 27, 2018, at 6:49 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On 27 January 2018 at 16:18, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> The requirement is that log4j-core have no required dependencies. I >> > should >> > >> have as few optional dependencies as possible. >> > >> >> > > >> > > That sounds perfectly reasonable. LMAX and Jackson are good examples. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > >
