logging-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2018 06:34:16 GMT
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:

> Log4j2 is not like Maven. Maven (I assume) has a plugin API. Log4j2
> modules depend on the internals of log4j-core.
> I agree with Gary that not being able to verify that a core change doesn’t
> break any modules when they live outside the main project is a valid
> concern.

This is a large and important concern for me. Whenever I take a serious
look at an appender for enterprise level use with my customers, I end up
having to add some features. This has happened for JMS, JDBC, Socket,
Console with JAnsi, and Core stuff (WatchManager for example.) Eventually
this will stop but then we will want to keep up with new feature as well.
So maybe it won't stop.

With the API, Core, and all these Appenders releasing in sync, everything
matches and all is well. If I need to add a feature to the JDBC Appender
that requires some other changes in Core? No problem. Even in different
modules, everything matches in a release.

I can't imagine the nightmare having to deal with updating a JMS plugin
3.0.x for Log4j 2.8.2 and a JDBC plugin 1.2.x for Log4j 2.11.0, and so on.
It does not seem we have the level of maturity Maven has, but Maven is on
their THIRD major release, so I would expect their SPI and object model to
be mature and plugin authoring to be easier.

Would we end up with module names like we have for Scala? Would I have a
log4j-2.11.0-jdbc-dbcp2-1.0.jar (the 1.0 release of a Log4j 2.11.0 JDBC
with Apache Commons DBCP 2 plugin)? Nasty :-(

I'm still looking for a plan or roadmap here.


> Why are we talking about modules and repos when the issue is that it takes
> too long to do a release? Maven reports most modules as taking a handful of
> seconds to build.
> I keep thinking:
> 1. We’re running the tests twice during a release. Let’s change this.
> Logically, once should be enough. What prevents us from doing this?
> 2. Core tests take unnecessarily long. By running some tests in parallel
> and some other tests without forking I have hope we can run all core tests
> in ~15 minutes.
> Won’t those two changes be much more impactful in reducing the release
> time than any amount of module or repo reshuffling?
> Remko
> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info
> > On Jan 22, 2018, at 8:14, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am very much against the idea of a single repo. Yes, you can have
> multiple projects in the repo but I am not sure how that can be sanely
> released. I much prefer the model that Maven has taken. They are now using
> gitbox [1] which seems to allow GitHub to be the primary repo. Every Maven
> plugin is individually released. Scroll down the link below to the Maven
> section and you can see all the plugin repos.
> >
> > The upside to this is that it are:
> >    1. It is far easier to perform releases of the individual components.
> >    2. It is much easier to accept plugin contributions.
> > The downsides are:
> >    1. A page like https://maven.apache.org/plugins/ <
> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/> is needed to keep track of the plugin
> versions.
> >    2. It could make sense to have log4j-parent and log4j-bom projects.
> The first to help keep the builds similar and the second to help customers
> pick up the latest versions.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > [1] https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf <https://gitbox.apache.org/
> repos/asf>
> >
> >> On Jan 21, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I am writing this to in an effort to understand how we can manage and
> grow
> >> Log4j. I use the term 'grow' not in the 'bigger is better' sense but
> more
> >> in the maturing sense.
> >>
> >> I am prompted to write this by Ralph's comment that log4j-core and the
> main
> >> repo is too big and that releases take too long make, partially
> prompted by
> >> my addition of a new module called log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 which currently
> >> contains one small class with a dependency on Apache Commons DBCP 2.
> >>
> >> I would like to express my gratitude at Ralph's efforts to revitalized
> >> Log4j and performing most release management duties. Thank you Ralph!
> >>
> >> I can see two main orthogonal issues:
> >> - The size of the git repo.
> >> - The size of the log4j-core module.
> >>
> >> Ralph has proposed that new modules like log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 be moved to
> >> another 'plugin' repo.
> >>
> >> I really dislike this idea:
> >> - The plugin repo has never been released. Not that one releases a repo
> but
> >> you get the point.
> >> - How do you keep things in sync between repos and code when we have no
> >> official 'core' SPI.
> >>
> >> For my money, we should keep _everything_ in one repo. Good enough for
> >> Google, so good enough for me. What we release out of that repo is a
> >> different story and what I would like to discuss next.
> >>
> >> This is not the same as Maven plugins IMO but the case could be made
> for it
> >> I suppose where a lot/most plugins live in their own repos. It is not
> the
> >> same as with Maven IMO because our plugins rely on log4j-core and it's
> >> guts, for which we only make loose compatibility guarantees -- as
> opposed
> >> to log4j-core where we are strict(er). Maven OTOH, has a API for plugin
> >> auteurs.
> >>
> >> For example, log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 replies on the guts of log4j-core and we
> have
> >> no 'official' core SPI, so splitting it off into a separate repo would
> >> greatly increase the risk of it falling out of sync. It is just so much
> >> more easier to maintain when it is all in one repo.
> >>
> >> My proposal is to:
> >>
> >> - Put everything back into one repo (Chainsaw too?)
> >> - Define a core SPI for plugin writers where we make some statement
> about
> >> BC, more than the casual 'we try not break stuff.'
> >> - Defining what Log4j project 'components' we have and release based on
> >> that. For example, today, all of the main Log4j repo is one component
> with
> >> many modules. Chainsaw would be another component of the Log4j project.
> >> Maybe we need to redefine components: API, File, JDBC and so on. A
> >> component can have one of more module
> >> - Got for there.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Help me flush this out?
> >>
> >> Thank you for reading!
> >> Gary
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message