logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [log4j2] Name and versions
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:30:26 GMT
These are all very good points   If you would look at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/index.html
as one example page and help figure out how to change it so that when we are at log4j 2.1.2
the page doesn't feel awkward because it is talking about 2.0 then I'd be OK with this.  I
suppose one option would be to change all the log4j2 references to "log4j 2.x".

FWIW, I've looked at commons lang - http://commons.apache.org/lang/ - and you will notice
it refers to itself as both lang 3.0 and lang3 because they changed both the package name
(org.apache.commons.lang3) and the version number (3.0).  On the other hand, Commons VFS,
which I released, is documented only as VFS or VFS 2.0 even though it also changed its package
name to org.apache.commons.vfs2.  However, in that case VFS 2.0 was very, very similar to
VFS 1.x.  Commons Math - http://commons.apache.org/math/index.html - also seems to refer to
itself as commons math even though it is also org.apache.commons.math3.  

A difference that we have is that Log4j 1.x used  

package - org.apache.log4j
groupId - log4j
artifactId - log4j

Where we are now using
package - org.apache.logging.log4j
groupId - org.apache.logging.log4j
artifactId - log4j2-*

Since the package and groupId are already unique from Log4j 1.x the notion of having the "2"
in the artifactId (or package) isn't necessary.


Ralph

On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> Thanks Ralph for explaining the background on this.
> 
> Actually I am for version 3. It confuses me to see at leats 3 numbers
> in the name. Imaging the following version number: log4j2 2.2.2-BETA2
> gives me headache.
> My current fave for version numbers is http://semver.org/
> 
> As you already mentioned, for a major release number bump it is
> natural that bc goes away. That being said I don't see reason why we
> would need to make an explicit 2 after log4j. What, if we would level
> to another log4j? Lets say v3 is not bc with log4j2 2.0. Then we would
> have either log4j3 1.0 or log4j2 3.0.
> 
> Basically the name log4j2 as we use it now is a change of the product
> name and we should be carefully with that. It is the same as log4j-xt
> or log4java or log4j-nextgeneration.
> 
> I would feel better if we could stick with the original project name
> log4j and just use version numbering to express the changes.
> 
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> I should also mention that there is more than 1 artifact. There currently is log4j12-api,
log4j2-api, logj42-core, log4j2-jcl, slf4j-impl, logj42-flume-og and log4j2-flume-ng.
> 
> Yes, I agree, this is to consider. By the way, is your plan to always
> release them all at once, giving them all the same version number, or
> are different version numbers for each component allowed?
> 
> Cheers
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for looking at this.
>>> 
>>> The choices I considered were
>>> 
>>> 1)
>>> <groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId>
>>> <version>1.x<//version>
>>> 
>>> 2)
>>> <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId>
>>> <version>1.x</version>
>>> 
>>> 3)
>>> <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>log4j</groupId>
>>> <version>2.x</version>
>>> 
>>> I preferred 1 but am OK with 2.  I didn't like 3 simply because the doc was talking
about Log4j 2.0 and I quickly realized we would have a 2.1 and then the doc would be strange.
 So I shortened it to Log4j 2 and then thought it looked better as log4j2.  It just seemed
more natural to start numbering that at 1.0.
>>> 
>>> Also, 2.0 isn't binary compatible with 1.x (except for the log4j 1.x adapter
- which can't be 100% compatible either), but that isn't unusual in a major release change.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I saw:
>>>> https://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/download.html
>>>> 
>>>> The release name is for example:
>>>> apache-log4j2-1.0-alpha1.tar.gz
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't this a little bit confusing?
>>>> 
>>>> I was under the impression it should be like this:
>>>> 
>>>> <artifactId>log4j</artifactId>
>>>> <version>2.0-alpha1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>> 
>>>> Thus the name is log4j 2.0 and not log4j2 1.0.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Christian
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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