Perhaps we can keep the artifact id but advertise the module as something besides “Log4j Core”? When introducing the hypothetical new name for the module, we can include a parenthetical “AKA Log4j Core” to clarify. — Matt Sicker
> On Jun 22, 2023, at 10:12, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Pretend for a moment that you work for a company that has lots of shared > components that don’t always do everything correctly and publish artifacts > that declare a dependency on log4j-core (Note: I do). If we change the name > of log4j-core to something else then suddenly both an older version of > log4j-core and the new artifact are going to be on the class path. The user > will absolutely not know this until they start running their application and > start to have weird problems. This is exactly why when Commons components > change the artifact name they also require the package names to be changed. > However, this still would not really help in our case as now both log4j 2.x > and log4j 3.x would be present which would undoubtedly create a host of > problems. > > Without having an easy and foolproof way to deal with that I would have to > vote -1 on changing the artifact name. > > Note that all the examples of projects renaming do not have the same problems > Log4j will when both are present on the class path. > > However, I am in favor of splitting the web site in two between the API and > the implementation, possibly even giving some of the optional modules their > own web site or at least breaking them more clearly into their own pages. > > Ralph > >> On Jun 22, 2023, at 1:34 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think one of the main problems preventing Log4j API from being used >> more wildly are naming problems and misinformation on many sites. >> >> Personally I find the name `log4j-core` for our implementation quite >> unfortunate: this is often interpreted as "core Log4j classes", which >> suggests that all artifacts including `log4j-api` should be considered >> as a unit. >> >> I would profit from the major version bump to change it to >> `log4j-impl` or `log4j-runtime`. >> >> Similar changes have occurred in other projects. For example JAXB >> changed it's implementation from `jaxb-impl`[1] to `jaxb-runtime`[2] >> (and also the group id), during the jakartification process. >> >> The Java EE Mail project used `javax.mail-api` for their API and >> `javax.mail` for their implementation. Now they renamed their >> implementation to `angus-mail`, which stresses the difference between >> API and implementation more (although in this case Angus **is** the >> only implementation available). >> >> So, what do you think about renaming `log4j-core`? >> >> Piotr >> >> [1] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.sun.xml.bind/jaxb-impl >> [2] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.glassfish.jaxb/jaxb-runtime >> [3] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.mail/javax.mail-api >> [4] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.sun.mail/javax.mail >> [5] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.eclipse.angus/angus-mail >
