Sure, I can wait until next week. Ralph
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Ferenc Szabo <fsz...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Could you please wait until next week? I would like to do some additional > compatibility testing, I just need a little more time. I will notify you > when I am done with it. > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> The patch was modified to address the review comments. If there are no >> other comments I will merge the branch this weekend. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 10:09 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, the pull request was modified to remove the extraneous files. >> Please review. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have submitted https://github.com/apache/flume/pull/181 < >> https://github.com/apache/flume/pull/181> to implement this. The only >> component still dependent on log4j 1.x is Flume’s Log4j Appender. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I should point out that Log4j 2 has shipped a Flume Appender since >> before it went GA. The Flume Log4j Appender is for users who use Log4j 1.x >> to connect to Flume. There really is no reason to drop that even if Flume >> itself starts using Log4j 2. Since Flume is a standalone app there really >> isn’t anything that requires a break in compatibility. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Attila Simon <s...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Lior, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks a lot! Based on these it is indeed flume 2.0 and I have no >> objection >>>>>> having it than (don't know when it will be but hope we can speed up >> the >>>>>> release cycles). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Attila >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Attila Simon* >>>>>> Software Engineer >>>>>> Email: s...@cloudera.com >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: Cloudera Inc.] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Lior Zeno <liorz...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, the Log4jAppender will be deprecated. Log4j2 already provides >> a >>>>>>> Flume appender [1]. >>>>>>> Second, since we use almost exclusively the SLF4j API in Flume, the >> code >>>>>>> will only slightly change. The major difference is with the >> configuration >>>>>>> files which have changed from 1.x to 2.x [2]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders. >> html#FlumeAppender >>>>>>> [2] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Attila Simon <s...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Lior, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you please explain a bit what will break? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Attila >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016, Lior Zeno <liorz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Log4j (v1) has been EOL'ed over a year now ( >>>>>>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache_ >>>>>>>> logging_services_project_ >>>>>>>>> announces) >>>>>>>>> and is no longer officially supported. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I propose we migrate to Log4j 2. We can begin with using the Log4j >> 1.x >>>>>>>>> bridge, and then incrementally move the whole codebase. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since this is a breaking change, I think we should schedule this to >>>>>>> Flume >>>>>>>>> 2.0.0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Attila Simon* >>>>>>>> Software Engineer >>>>>>>> Email: s...@cloudera.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [image: Cloudera Inc.] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>
