Alternatives to automatic modules as a concept

Gunnar Morling gunnar at
Mon Mar 20 09:56:14 UTC 2017

That's great news!

I totally agree that this is the right way forward. My injection hack
was an experiment to make the current released version usable under
Jigsaw (and it does work), but if slf4j moves to services soon, that's
much better of course.

2017-03-20 10:29 GMT+01:00 Ceki Gülcü <ceki at>:
> 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
> Best regards,
> --
> Ceki

More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list