logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: will there be a parameterized message in log4j like it is in slf4j?
Date Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:25:01 GMT

Curt Arnold wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>> Betrayal is a big word to associate with a facility,
>> i.e. ObjectRenderer, which hardly anyone uses, especially since there
>> are other ways of transforming an Object into a String. In a
>> widely-used project like log4j, it is easy to dig one's heels so as to
>> prevent change based on the backward compatibility argument.
>> The changes I am proposing will affect an extremely small minority,
>> say less than 1 user in 100'000,
> Jess Holle immediately responded when the idea was floated that it would 
> break his use of log4j.  Usage questions on non-String first parameters 
> comes up often enough on the mailing list that it cannot be just 
> 1/100,000 of users.

Jess Holle has indeed reacted pretty quickly. For any popular library,
there will be users who react negatively to proposed changes. The
1/100'000 is probably too low an estimation. However, it is accurate to
say that the number of users who would benefit from logging
consolidation far outnumber those who would be negatively affected by
the Object->String change. It should also be noted that the
Object->String change does not mean that messages of type Object
cannot be passed to log4j. They just need to be passed differently.

> I'm not aware of an Apache java compatibility statement, but Eclipse has 
> one, http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Evolving_Java-based_APIs.  The 
> technical description of binary compatibility in Java is described in 
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/binaryComp.html.  
> The build.xml does CLIRR (http://clirr.sourceforge.net/).  I do not 
> believe I have ever made a backwards compatibility argument that went 
> beyond those.

In the context of an highly extensible framework like log4j, if
perfect backward compatibility were needed, it would be impossible to
change a single line of code. Careful compromises are needed to have
the log4j project evolve.

> Nothing has been new in this thread.

Yes. From the start it was clear that you were never going to change
your mind. Even when there were strictly *zero* backward compatibility
issues, you voiced strong opposition to adopting the SLF4J API or UGLI
as it was formerly called. I am hoping that the other log4j committers
will eventually realize that your stewardship of log4j, both in style
and substance, have been detrimental to the project. We might have
reached that point today, which would be something new in this

I would also like to remind you that the position of chairperson
should be the subject of new elections from time to time. You have
been chairperson for Apache Logging for 4 years without organizing new

Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.

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

View raw message