logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Log4J 2.0
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:46:51 GMT

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


Mime
View raw message