Alternatives to automatic modules as a concept

[Ceki Gülcü]

On March 20, 2017 1:44 AM Alam Bateman wrote:

 > There isn't any notification/callback. Also it's not clear to me that
 > injecting code into SLF4J is the right thing to do (it feels like 
hacking).
 >
 > If I were a SLF4J maintainer then I think I would re-visit how the API
 > locates the logging framework binding. Specifically I would look to
 > migrate it to services. So rather than each binding a
 > org.slf4j.impl.StaticXXXX classes, it would instead provide an
 > implementation of a service type that SLF4J puts in an exported package.
 > It may be that cleaning up this area can be done without any impact to
 > user code and I would expect the issue of the simple binding to just
 > fall out of the wash.
 >
 > -Alan.

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

   https://jira.qos.ch/browse/SLF4J-401

Best regards,

--
Ceki