Alternatives to automatic modules as a concept
ceki at qos.ch
Mon Mar 20 12:22:16 UTC 2017
On 3/20/2017 12:07, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 20/03/2017 09:29, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, that's actually the plan for the next SLF4J
>> version. For what it's worth, to track progress I have also created
> Good! Is there also an issue tracking releasing it someday as a set of
There is the parent issue, namely SLF4J-372 and also SLF4J-402 "Jigsaw
> In the mean-time then I would expect existing versions of SLF4J to work
> on the class path as before. Also existing versions should "just work"
> as automatic modules on the module path. This goes for the case where
> both slf4j.api and the logging framework JAR are treated as modules, or
> where slf4j.api is a module and the logging framework JAR remains on the
> class path.
The current plan is to completely abandon StaticXXXBinder mechanism in
SLF4J 1.8. SLF4J backends, aka slf4j-compliant logging frameworks, would
need to adapt to the ServiceLoader mechanism.
As for jigsaw module declarations, I expect it to be trivial assuming
building under Java 9 but targeting Java 6.
More information about the jigsaw-dev