logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: Proposed synchronization changes
Date Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:57:30 GMT
Jacob Kjome wrote:
> Hi Jess,
> I suggest you post a tracking bug report for this so that these changes don't just
> get lost on the list.
I may manage to get to this prior to leaving on vacation.  My changes 
won't be lost for me at any rate :-)
> Sounds like you did a lot of great work that could be the
> basis for Log4j-2.0.  Maybe you can gather up enough steam to make 2.0 a reality.
This was a just off and on work over a few days.  I'm not sure if I have 
the "steam" to make 2.0 a reality.  I'd like to see a broader 
performance, scalability, and thread safety sweep across log4j, but I'm 
not sure that's all of what 2.0 should be nor that I can afford to power 
even that much of 2.0 at this time.
> And I agree.  JDK1.5+ should be what 2.0 targets.  There no compelling reason to
> support previous versions.  However, ease of migration would be a big issue.  If
> 2.0 changes in ways that make it hard for users migrate from 1.2.x to 2.0, then
> they just won't bother.  I'd say as long as the primary APIs stay the same
> (Logger, Level, etc...), there's shouldn't be an issue.

A big question as per my other e-mail on this thread is how much 
compatibility should be maintained for existing Appenders, Layouts, etc.

I can see that we'd want new improved Appenders and Layouts and base 
classes thereof, but could also see it making migration more palatable 
if old Appender and/or Layout extensions kept working.

Jess Holle

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message