http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201 sean <sean@thescottasylum.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sean@thescottasylum.com --- Comment #12 from sean <sean@thescottasylum.com> --- I agree. SLF4J ( with logback ) does not require any code dependencies to the underlying logging framework. The factory provides logger instances that implement SLF4J interfaces. Why be belligerent about the request to put a shutdown interface into the API (Even suggesting its a feature)? If you would add the method/interface, the implementation of the logger can do what they want with the interface, and the user of SLF4J (me) can invoke it at the proper time in the application lifecycle. What you are suggesting eliminates the value of having logger agnostic API to code to. I mean really? get the underlying logger, cast it to an implementation, and then use it? If I am building a code dependency on the underlying logger, why even use SLF4J? Come on guys. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.