Alternatives to automatic modules as a concept

Ceki Gülcü ceki at
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
> modules?

There is the parent issue, namely SLF4J-372 and also SLF4J-402 "Jigsaw 
module declarations".

> 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 mailing list