The set of appenders provided by the main Logback project includes implementations for nine vendor-specific database products. The target audience for each of these database appenders is significantly smaller than the target audience for the TestNG  Reporter appender provided by this PR. 


In a recent survey of dependency references in GitHub, the TestNG library comes in at #20 on the list of the top 100 most frequently used libraries. The only database flavor that comes close to this level of popularity is MySQL, which came in at #26. HSQL comes in at #54, and the remaining SQL flavors didn't make it onto the Top 100 list.


I can migrate the TestNG Reporter appender to a companion project without the need to duplicate core unit test classes, by adding a "test-jar" dependency to my Maven project. While this is functional, it's less than ideal, as it makes this appender more difficult for potential users to find.


Does any of these factors tip the balance in favor of incorporating this new appender into the main Logback project?


From: logback-dev <logback-dev-bounces@qos.ch> on behalf of Ceki Gülcü <ceki@qos.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:00 PM
To: logback developers list
Subject: Re: [logback-dev] Logback PR #352: Add appender for TestNG Reporter
 
Hi Scoot,

Thank you for posting your question on this list.

ReporterAppender is probably not useful enough for a wider audience. As
such, I do not think it is advisable to incorporate it into logback proper.

Best regards,

--
Ceki

On 1/11/2017 21:29, Scott Babcock wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> My PR #352 (https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/352) was closed,
> stating that it’s not generic enough. Given that TestNG is the most
> widely used Java testing framework in the world, how much more generic
> does a Logback logger need to be for it to be included in the mainline
> project?
>
>
>
> The primary challenge with spinning this up as a separate project is
> that much of the basic building blocks for developing loggers and unit
> tests haven’t been defined or published in a form that facilitates
> extension and importation of these existing declarations. Consequently,
> it’s necessary to duplicate a significant volume of the implementation
> from the mainline project into the companion logger project. This is
> terribly inefficient and exposes the external project to the risk of
> breakage as revisions are applied to the mainline project that aren’t
> automatically picked up by the companion project.
>
>
>
> Please advise.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> = Scott Babcock =
>
>
_______________________________________________
logback-dev mailing list
logback-dev@qos.ch
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev