Dropwizard: JPMS builds fail due to split package (logback.core) in dropwizard-logging:1.3.0

Created on 20 Mar 2018 · 8Comments · Source: dropwizard/dropwizard

1.3.0 exposes the ch.qos.logback.core package in the jar. JPMS builds will fail for most use cases because of this as logback-core is used widely by other libraries.

Source

christopher-johnson

Most helpful comment

This is still an issue

willpdp on 19 Aug 2019

👍2

All 8 comments

Yes, unfortunately, this one of the painful points for Dropwizard. The project originally was designed to work with Logback configured from an application YAML file and the default logging configuration pokes around in Logback internals to make it work. We've managed to adjust Dropwizard to work with other logging providers (#1900, #2112), but you have to manually exclude the logback dependencies from the core and make sure BootstrapLogging is not loaded by the classloader, which is obviously a kludge. Maybe in Dropwizard 2.0 we will be able to implemented a more modular approach.

arteam on 20 Mar 2018

I think the problem is here https://github.com/dropwizard/dropwizard/blob/117cd08130cfebb1e78345672edf7b922d6e215e/dropwizard-logging/src/main/java/ch/qos/logback/core/recovery/ResilentSocketOutputStream.java#L54

This method is not overrideable from outside the package. Maybe we can ask over here http://jira.qos.ch/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa to open it to be overrideable by any subclass?

pstorch on 13 May 2018

I've opened a ticket here: https://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-1400

pstorch on 18 May 2018

👍2

I've also opened a PR for Logback to fix it: https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/417

But there wasn't a commit to logback since February and there are a lot of open PRs. So I don't expect anything soon.
What else can be done in Dropwizard? Extract the ResilentSocketOutputStream class in it's own jar file (e.g. module) which can be excluded in case an app wants to use another logging implementation?
Other ideas?

pstorch on 20 May 2018

Is anyone aware of a workaround for this?

willpdp on 14 Aug 2019

This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days