I created a pull request for removing jul-to-slf4j[1] and it seems all existing tests aren't affected.
The Pulsar project uses slf4j as the logging facade consistently. If a user want to add a dependency using a different logging framework, they should take care of the packaging strategy themselves. pulsar-sql has a dependency to slf4j-jdk14 which redirect slf4j to jul. Since this is a unidirectional redirection, it won't cause runtime error, but pulsar-sql will logging with jul framework, which is the same as with previous workaround. cc mme...@apache.org as the original author of this stuff. Best, tison. [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16320 tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年6月21日周二 23:01写道： > cc users@, > > Here is a discussion to remove jul-to-slf4j from pulsar's dependency tree. > > I'd like to do an investigation that whether any user depends on this > transitive dependency for: > > 1. Implicitly add jul-to-slf4j to classpath from a pulsar-xxx fatjar. > 2. Implicitly calling: > SLF4JBridgeHandler.removeHandlersForRootLogger(); > SLF4JBridgeHandler.install(); > > .. or any other use case. > > Best, > tison. > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年6月21日周二 19:29写道： > >> Thanks for your input @Enrico! I'll do some investigation in these two >> weeks. >> Does this estimate meet the schedule of 2.11? >> >> BTW, there is another dependency change PR[1] waiting for review. I don't >> want >> to mix this thread but throw it here under the same topic for more >> visibility. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16109 >> >> >> Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2022年6月21日周二 19:15写道： >> >>> Tison, >>> >>> Il giorno mar 21 giu 2022 alle ore 12:44 tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >>> ha scritto: >>> > >>> > Hi devs, >>> > >>> > I learn that PulsarAdminImpl has a static block requires classpath >>> contains >>> > exact either of >>> > >>> > * slf4j-jdk14 >>> > * jul-to-slf4j >>> > >>> > I'm curious what logging framework Pulsar choose among the codebase. >>> >>> AKAIF we are using only SLF4J in Pulsar codebase. >>> maybe jul-to-slf4j is there only for historical reasons >>> >>> ideally jul-to-slf4j is only something you should care about only >>> during packaging, for runtime (or you can add it also for with test >>> scope) >>> >>> we could try to remove it for the next major release (2.11) >>> >>> Would you like to do some trials ? >>> >>> Enrico >>> >>> >>> > Basically we should >>> > depend on either jul facade or slf4j facade, and leave the class >>> loading >>> > issue to users who >>> > include libraries depending on other logging framework. >>> > >>> > Current logic causes an issue that if user doesn't depend on both >>> > slf4j-jdk14 and jul-to-slf4j, >>> > PulsarAdminImpl will panic because it requires exact one of these two >>> deps >>> > in the classpath. >>> > And thus user should add one of them (basically jul-to-slf4j) even if >>> they >>> > don't depend on it >>> > effectively. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > tison. >>> >>
