2009/4/29 Ceki Gulcu <[email protected]> > > > But what is annoying to me is that these redundant files > > are included when they should not, because from a logical point of > > view project C does not need the config files of project A or B. >
=> This means you should go into a D project (Stephen proposal) ... even if it is heavy for flyweight issues. To my mind the unpack/repack proposal is far less heavy/complicated than this point ... Particularly, it implies project C to "foresee" existence of certain files in your projects A & B (don't forget these projects could evolve without notifying C) : wouldn't it be dangerous ? > > > This is somewhat off topic, but since the question has been raised in > this forum, allow me to explain. > > First, it is not SLF4J which is complaining, it's logback-classic > which Olivier indicated he was using. During automatic > initialization, if and when logback-classic sees two or more > configuration files on the class path, it emits a warning: > "Hey, I see N different copies of logback.xml on your class path. The > copies are located at path1, path2, ..., pathN. I am picking the first > one." (It's just a warning...) > > Lobgack-classic is noticing an ambiguity and informing the user. > > HTH, > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for > Java. > http://logback.qos.ch > > Cool ! I'm rassured ;-)
