logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Log4J 2.0
Date Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:41:44 GMT
Thanks, I see the various Jira issues you have started. That is great. 
Unfortunately my work laptop died today and I'll probably end up 
spending most of the evening reinstalling stuff on it. I will make sure 
I add what I would like to see by the end of the weekend.

I have one concern about the issue where 2.0 should be "generally api 
compatible". IIUC the Category class has been deprecated for a long 
time. I think that should be fair game to cleanup. I'm also happy to see 
you'd like to change the configuration. I'd actually like to make that 
pluggable, but I guess I'd also be happy using something like 
commons-logging, as long as their aren't any circularity conflicts.

I would love to have commit access, even if it is only to the branch 
where the new work will occur, but I will leave that up to the community 
to decide.

Ralph

Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:35 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> The website says there is an experimental branch for log4j 2.0 
>> development, but I can't seem to find it.
>
> I did some experiments a year ago in 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/sandbox/experimental/pattern-layout that 
> capture several of my ideas at the time on reworking the back end 
> classes.  I didn't want to brand that experiment as the start of log4j 
> 2.0 until there was some consensus.  See 
> http://marc.info/?l=log4j-dev&m=117778958715164&w=2
>
>> I looked at the wiki and I don't see anything there discussing what 
>> log4j 2.0 should be.
>> A month or so ago I searched the archives and did find the 
>> discussions around stopping 1.3 and some discussion about 2.0 but 
>> that just seemed to die.
>>
>> I am very interested in a "new and improved" log4j and would love to 
>> be involved in making that happen.
>
> You would be very much welcomed.  Since you are an Apache member, we 
> should be able to expedite a vote on commit privileges.
>
>
>> But before writing any code it might be nice to document just what 
>> 2.0 should be. For example, I believe there is general agreement that 
>> 2.0 should leverage Java 1.5. But what about implementing AOP 
>> constructs such as automatic method entry and exit logging, borrowing 
>> from some of the features added to SLF4J such as Markers and 
>> TurboFilters, etc.
>>
>
> There is a JIRA set up to collect potential log4j 2.0 features 
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2).  It is pretty empty at 
> the moment.  Feel free to add any features (in the most generic sense) 
> that you think should be considered for log4j 2.0.
>
> I'd prefer if you would explain the use case and motivation for a 
> feature in a bug report unless you really really need an identical 
> solution, in that case, do both the general use case as one bug as a 
> different bug for the specific solution.  So instead of saying "log4j 
> 2.0 needs markers", so "cross-cuts on logging hierarchy" as one bug 
> and "SLF4J style markers" as another and explain the motivation.
>
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ralph
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message