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: Release of log4j version 1.2.10
Date Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:19:26 GMT

On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

>
>
> The idea of migration to SLF4J from UGLI was discussed several weeks
> ago and was received favorably. Moreover, the SLF4J code is not new.
> Actually, SLF4J has been part of log4j HEAD with a different name
> (UGLI) for over 10 months. At present time, SLF4j is also part of CVS
> HEAD.

I followed that discussion, but maybe not closely enough.  My 
impression (possibly not accurate) was that the UGLI code was being 
removed for log4j and that SLF4J was being established under a 
non-Apache license.  I had no problem with that.

I was not aware that the intention was to make log4j (and particularly 
the 1.2 branch) dependent on non-Apache code that is likely effectively 
personally copyrighted and completely under Ceki's control.  By 
removing it from ASF and but then incorporating it by reference into 
log4j, it effectively eliminates the control the log4j project is 
supposed to have over code in its project.

The implementation of SLF4J for JDK 1.4 logging is able to be down 
externally from the JDK 1.4 implementation.  I would assume that the 
log4j implementation(s) could also be done externally.  For anyone 
interested in SLF4J, an external implementation of SLF4J for log4j 1.2 
would be preferable since it would be able to be used with existing 
deployments of early log4j versions.  Adding would also seem to violate 
the consensus of not adding new features to the log4j 1.2 branch.

>
> SLF4J solves some serious reliability problems hundreds of users
> suffer from daily. When our users can deploy log4j reliably, it is
> fair to say that the log4j project stands to gain from SLF4J.

That may be true.  However, SLF4J is just emerging and has no 
widespread acceptance.  It may or may not be subject to change.  I 
don't know of any discussion how we would keep log4j in synch with 
subsequence versions of SLF4J.

>
> Please note that the 1.2.10 release is 100% compatible with previous
> 1.2 releases. I really was not expecting a controversy surrounding
> this release. Consequently, I may have rushed it a little, hoping for
> your continued support and understanding.
>

However, it introduces a second license in an Apache distribution.  
Even if it is compatible, it complicates the analysis of licensing 
issues since users have to check that the SDF4J license is actually an 
X11 license and feel comfortable with it.  It might not be a big deal, 
but it should be at least of some concern.

It also implies that SDF4J will be a maintained feature of future log4j 
1.2 releases and the log4j 1.3 series at least till it would go through 
a release where it was deprecated.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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