Alternatives to automatic modules as a concept

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

2017/3/20 2:29:12 -0700, ceki at qos.ch:
> 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

Excellent -- glad to hear this!

- Mark