logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ANN] Deleting receivers and components 'companions'
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:16:44 GMT
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think adding things to core at this point adds an expectation on
> log4j 2.0 at all personally.


Actually I can't understand this argumentation. Its just blocking. I
mean - don't make log4j1.2.x to good, because people will be
disappointed for 2.0? I would prefer: 1.2 has become pretty old, lets
make the best out of it. And afterwards we'll help on 2.0 making it
even better.

> I'm against creating a logging attic.
> Receivers are the other half of appenders.  Unless you only care about
> fileappenders, they have utility.
> I'd still prefer to see things moved in to core.  Our DTD defines things in
> component (plugins, etc)...why those don't belong next to domconfigurator
> I'm not sure.
> Scott
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:
>> I used Nexus for the last release of log4j and struggled with it. If I
>> remember correctly there were issues with our Maven group ID not starting
>> with org.apache that prevented the release from being mirrored to Maven
>> central, but think we finally worked through all the issues.
>> I would not be in favor of moving components into log4j-core. Moving the
>> tests into core would be a chore and users would have the expectation that
>> anything in core would be supported in some manner with log4j 2.0. There
>> will be disappointment anyway, but we shouldn't pile anything more into
>> log4j-core that we can't carry over into log4j 2.0.
>> It looks like the receivers and companions source code was moved into
>> chainsaw with copy and then svn add. Unfortunately that loses all history
>> behind the code. Using svn cp would preserve that.
>> I'd suggest creating logging/attic, svn mv'ing component and receivers
>> there. It may be good to delete the recent copy and pasted code checked into
>> Chainsaw with svn cp's so the code history is preserved.
>> On Webstart, there have been discussions over several years about
>> providing a code signing facility for Apache binaries specifically for the
>> web server so that crashes can be collected from Microsoft's crash reporting
>> systems. I do not know if that ever progressed.
>> While Webstart is attractive, it may be hard to bring it into line with
>> Apache release policy. I'm pretty sure that it is not mirrored or GPG signed
>> for example. If it is mirrored, then I'm sure users will not be checking
>> signatures to make sure that they are getting the legitimate ASF Chainsaw
>> and not some other Chainsaw.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

View raw message