Although log4j 1.3 was abandoned, it's fair to say log4j 2.0 hasn't gotten off the ground either, not sure it ever will.

I agree, logmf is not a good option, this feature needs to be in the core logging framework.

I think that leaves us with the option of adding useful features to the current 1.2 codebase, even if it affects backward compatibility.  Time for the log4j committers & interested users to voice their opinions on 'the future of log4j'.

As for Antonio's patches, thanks for providing them.  I've applied them to my working copy and I'll commit them if everything goes ok.

Scott



On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Antonio Petrelli <antonio.petrelli@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/10/3 leif <leif.hanack@hypoport.de>:
> do you plan to "backport" the parameterized message feature of slf4j to log4j?
> we are using log4j and a switch to slf4j seems unneeded.

IMHO this is a contradiction: if you need this feature, you need to
use slf4j or wait for a looong time.
You could try writing a patch but don't expect to be applied soon. I
filed 4 bugs with patches, the oldest is from the end of July, and
nobody applied them, nor someone tried to review the patch.
So my suggestion is to, at least, leave native log4j and move over
slf4j. The best solution, IMHO, is to move to LogBack.

Ciao
Antonio

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