According to the issue tracker: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET
there are about 24 open issues. You could take a look at some of those to get an idea of what users are asking for. --- Jonathan Wiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for addressing this question Nicko. I am relatively new to > this mailing group, and have been trying to get a feel for the > progress of the project. Related to that, are there tasks that > someone new with a strong background in software engineering and .NET > could pick up to help move the project along? I am certainly > interested in becoming a contributor to the project. Your list of > items below certainly speaks to what needs to be done better than the > web site or Q&A sections do. > > Thanks! > Jonathan Wiggs > > ________________________________ > > From: Nicko Cadell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sun 6/26/2005 3:22 PM > To: Log4NET Dev > Subject: RE: http://logging.apache.org/log4net/roadmap.html > > > > The old plan file is a little out of date. These are the things that > I > think are still outstanding from the old plan: > > 1) Lots more unit tests. > > 2) Documentation needs to be enhanced with more configuration > examples > and much more hand-holding. > Documentation for each appender > Documentation for each example > log4net Features > Howto build log4net (NAnt & Visual Studio .NET) > > 3) Examples need to be available in C# and VB where possible. Some > Managed C++ examples would be nice. > > 4) Investigate a WMI appender. > > > Of these I think that 1 is always going to be around, but we could do > a > much better job even if we port over the tests from log4j. The > documentation has improved, but as in 2 we don't have documentation > for > each appender beyond what is in the SDK docs. We should have > documentation for our configuration schema that goes in element by > element. We have some VB examples and I think one managed C++ > example, > we could always do with more examples in more languages, but we also > need to document them. I don't think that 4, the WMI appender, is a > priority now, if it is easy to do then we can add it as a sample > appender. > > > The plan had some 1.3 features: > > 5) Replace internal logging (LogLog) with log4net itself. Replace > ErrorHandler and OnlyOnceErrorHandler with alarm style extension. > > 6) Strategy based rollovers. Unlike the RollingFileAppender, Apache > Avalon's logkit has a nice and clean implementation for rolling > files. > See the org.apache.log.output.io.rotate package for exact details. > Their > implementation is based on strategies which are sub-components of > appender. > > 7) Cope with appender failure. Add a FallbackErrorHandler that > implements the ErrorHandler interface such that a secondary appender > may > be specified. This secondary appender takes over if the primary > appender > fails for whatever reason. > > > Of these 7 is the most difficult to get right and probably the most > important. It may require significant changes to the log4net core to > implement. We may also need to coordinate our implementation with > other > log4x projects. > > Thoughts? > > Nicko > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ron Grabowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 16 June 2005 18:02 > > To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org > > Subject: http://logging.apache.org/log4net/roadmap.html > > > > I noticed this file has been "coming soon" for several > > months. I recall seeing a road map when 1.2.0 beta 8 was on > > the website. Any word future features or things that still > > need to be done? > > > > > > >
