ppkarwasz commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2809054957
> No, what I mean is, there are users creating Fat JARs with an explicit
list of dependencies. With the next minor Log4j 2 version, they will be missing
a `compile`-scoped depend
vy commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2808834083
> I am not sure what implications are you thinking about. Yes, their fat
JARs will be a couple of KiB bigger.
No, what I mean is, there are users creating Fat JARs with an explici
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2805698294
> will this have any [backward compatibility] implications on the fat JAR
users?
I am not sure what implications are you thinking about. Yes, their fat JARs
will be a coup
vy commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2804313789
@ppkarwasz, will this have any [backward compatibility] implications on the
fat JAR users?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, plea
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2799870211
@rgoers,
I moved `jspecify` into the `provided` scope for `log4j-api`. Can you review
this PR again?
**Note**: The build is expected to fail until #3601 is fixed. I
ppkarwasz commented on code in PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#discussion_r2041080025
##
log4j-api/pom.xml:
##
@@ -63,16 +63,19 @@
- org.jspecify
- jspecify
+ org.osgi
+ org.osgi.core
provided
+
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2503998195
> I believe we made some effort in 3.0 to remove many dependencies but I
don't believe we got rid of them all.
Version `3.0.0-beta3` of Log4j Core has **no** external depen
rgoers commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2503923493
Yes, the -1 is for the API only. While we have always tried to minimize the
dependencies on Log4j-core that has never been as strict. I believe we made
some effort in 3.0 to remove
rgoers commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2503565593
Yes, I am aware of all these arguments as they were raised when the
dependency was first added. I made the same objection then but was assured that
by using provided scope users wou
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#issuecomment-2503604797
> I made the same objection then but was assured that by using provided
scope users would have no problems if the dependency is missing. If that really
isn’t the case then the de
ppkarwasz commented on code in PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#discussion_r1860245662
##
log4j-api/pom.xml:
##
@@ -63,16 +63,19 @@
- org.jspecify
- jspecify
+ org.osgi
+ org.osgi.core
provided
+
rgoers commented on code in PR #3228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3228#discussion_r1855273603
##
log4j-api/pom.xml:
##
@@ -63,16 +63,19 @@
- org.jspecify
- jspecify
+ org.osgi
+ org.osgi.core
provided
+
12 matches
Mail list logo
