Hi Dongjin, Sorry for the late reply. Can we do step 3 without breaking any compatibility? If so then that sounds like a good idea.
Thanks, Mickael On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:08 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > I also thought over the issue thoroughly and would like to propose a minor > change to your proposal: > > 1. Deprecate log4j-appender now > 2. Document how to migrate into logging-log4j2 > 3. (Changed) Replace the log4j-appender (in turn log4j 1.x) dependencies in > tools, trogdor, and shell and upgrade to log4j2 in 3.x, removing log4j 1.x > dependencies. > 4. (Changed) Remove log4j-appender in Kafka 4.0 > > What we need to do for the log4j2 upgrade is just removing the log4j > dependencies only, for they can cause a classpath error. And actually, we > can do it without discontinuing publishing the log4j-appender artifact. So, > I suggest separating the upgrade to log4j2 and removing the log4j-appender > module. > > How do you think? If you agree, I will update the KIP and the PR > accordingly ASAP. > > Thanks, > Dongjin > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:06 PM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Dongjin, > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > I wonder if a simpler course of action could be: > > - Deprecate log4j-appender now > > - Document how to use logging-log4j2 > > - Remove log4j-appender and all the log4j dependencies in Kafka 4.0 > > > > This delays KIP-653 till Kafka 4.0 but (so far) Kafka is not directly > > affected by the log4j CVEs. At least this gives us a clear and simple > > roadmap to follow. > > > > What do you think? > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:12 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > > > I greatly appreciate you for reading the proposal so carefully! I wrote > > it > > > quite a while ago and rechecked it today. > > > > > > > Is the KIP proposing to replace the existing log4-appender or simply > > add > > > a new one for log4j2? Reading the KIP and with its current title, it's > > not > > > entirely explicit. > > > > > > Oh, After re-reading it, I realized that this is not clear. Let me > > clarify; > > > > > > 1. Provide a lo4j2 equivalent of traditional log4j-appender, > > > log4j2-appender. > > > 2. Migrate the modules depending on log4j-appender (i.e., tools, trogdor, > > > shell) into log4j2-appender, removing log4j-appender from dependencies. > > > 3. Entirely remove log4j-appender from the project dependencies, along > > with > > > log4j. > > > > > > I think log4j-appender may be published for every new release like > > before, > > > but the committee should make a decision on the policy. > > > > > > > Under Rejected Alternative, the KIP states: "the Kafka appender > > provided > > > by log4j2 community stores log message in the Record key". Looking at the > > > code, it looks like the log message is stored in the Record value: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/kafka/appender/KafkaManager.java#L135 > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > It's totally my fault; I confused it with another appender. The > > > compatibility problem in the logging-log4j2 Kafka appender is not the > > > format but the configuration. logging-log4j2 Kafka appender supports > > > `properties` configuration, which will be directly used to instantiate a > > > Kafka producer. However, log4j-appender has been using non-producer > > config > > > names like brokerList (=bootstrap.servers), requiredNumAcks (=acks). > > > Instead, logging-log4j2 Kafka appender supports retryCount, > > > sendEventTimestamp. > > > > > > On second thought, using logging-log4j2 Kafka appender internally and > > > making log4j2-appender to focus on compatibility facade only would be a > > > better approach; As I described above, the goal of this module is just > > > keeping the backward-compatibility, and (as you pointed out) the current > > > implementation has little value. Since > > org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-core > > > already includes Kafka appender, we can make use of the 'proven wheel' > > > without adding more dependencies. I have not tried it yet, but I think it > > > is well worth it. (One additional advantage of this approach is > > providing a > > > bridge to the users who hope to move from/into logging-log4j2 Kafka > > > appender.) > > > > > > > As the current log4j-appender is not even deprecated yet, in theory we > > > can't remove it till Kafka 4. If we want to speed up the process, I > > wonder > > > if the lack of documentation and a migration guide could help us. What do > > > you think? > > > > > > In fact, this is what I am doing nowadays. While working with > > > log4j-appender, I found that despite a lack of documentation, > > considerable > > > users are already using it[^1][^2][^3][^4][^5]. So, I think providing a > > > documentation to those who are already using log4j-appender is > > > indispensable. It should include: > > > > > > - What is the difference between log4j-appender vs. log4j2-appender. > > > - Which options are supported and deprecated. > > > - Exemplar configurations that show how to migrate. > > > > > > Here is the summary: > > > > > > 1. The goal of this proposal is to replace the traditional log4j-appender > > > for compatibility concerns. But log4j-appender may be published after the > > > deprecation. > > > 2. As of present, the description about logging-log4j2 Kafka appender is > > > entirely wrong. The problem is interface compatibility, not record > > format. > > > Focusing on the compatibility facade is a good approach. > > > 3. A documentation focus on migration should be provided. > > > > > > If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to tell me. > > Thanks > > > again for your comments! > > > > > > Best, > > > Dongjin > > > > > > [^1]: > > > > > https://docs.cloudera.com/csa/1.2.0/monitoring/topics/csa-kafka-logging.html > > > [^2]: > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22034895/how-to-use-kafka-0-8-log4j-appender > > > [^3]: > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32402405/delay-in-kafka-log4j-appender > > > [^4]: > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32301129/kafka-log4j-appender-not-sending-messages > > > [^5]: > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35628706/kafka-log4j-appender-0-9-does-not-work > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:04 PM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Dongjin, > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on the update to log4j2, it's definitively > > > > something we should complete. > > > > I have a couple of comments: > > > > > > > > 1) Is the KIP proposing to replace the existing log4-appender or > > > > simply add a new one for log4j2? Reading the KIP and with its current > > > > title, it's not entirely explicit. For example I don't see a statement > > > > under the proposed changes section. The PR seems to only add a new > > > > appender but the KIP mentions we want to fully remove dependencies to > > > > log4j. > > > > > > > > 2) Under Rejected Alternative, the KIP states: "the Kafka appender > > > > provided by log4j2 community stores log message in the Record key". > > > > Looking at the code, it looks like the log message is stored in the > > > > Record value: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/kafka/appender/KafkaManager.java#L135 > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Comparing it with the proposed new appender, apart from their > > > > configuration format (hence the backwards compatibility issues), they > > > > both work pretty much the same way, so it's not clear it would add a > > > > ton a value. > > > > > > > > At a glance, _I've not extensively looked at it_, it does not look > > > > very hard to migrate to the appender from the logging team. I was > > > > wondering if we should mention it in our documentation but I was not > > > > able to find any references to the log4j-appender in the Kafka docs: > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/search?q=KafkaLog4jAppender > > > > > > > > As the current log4j-appender is not even deprecated yet, in theory we > > > > can't remove it till Kafka 4. If we want to speed up the process, I > > > > wonder if the lack of documentation and a migration guide could help > > > > us. What do you think? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:57 PM Boojapho O <booja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Continuing to use log4j would leave several known security > > > > vulnerabilities in Apache Kafka, including > > > > https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-17571. The Apache log4j > > team > > > > will not fix this vulnerability and is urging an upgrade to log4j2. > > See > > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/ for further information. > > > > > > > > > > This is desperately needed in Apache 3.0 to keep the software secure. > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/05/26 12:31:20, Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > CC'd the +1ers of KIP-653 with detailed context: > > > > > > > > > > > > When I submitted and got the approval of KIP-653: Upgrade log4j to > > > > log4j2 > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2 > > > > >, > > > > > > I thought the log4j2-appender should not be the scope of the work. > > But > > > > it > > > > > > was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the VerifiableLog4jAppender tool is built upon > > log4j-appender, > > > > log4j > > > > > > 1.x artifact will co-exist with log4j2 artifact in the classpath > > within > > > > > > this scheme. Since the log4j 1.x code is not called anymore, I > > thought > > > > it > > > > > > is not problematic but actually, it was not - when I started to > > > > provide a > > > > > > preview of KIP-653 > > > > > > <http://home.apache.org/~dongjin/post/apache-kafka-log4j2-support/ > > >, > > > > some > > > > > > users reported that sometimes slf4j fails to find the appropriate > > > > binding > > > > > > within the classpath, resulting fail to append the log message. > > > > > > > > > > > > To resolve this problem, I subtly adjusted the scope of the work; I > > > > > > excluded Tools and Trogdor from KIP-653 and extended KIP-719 to > > take > > > > care > > > > > > of them instead, along with providing log4j2-appender. It is why > > the > > > > > > current WIP implementations include some classpath logic in the > > shell > > > > > > script and *why KIP-653 only can't complete the log4j2 migration*. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope you will check this proposal out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dongjin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:43 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping up the discussion thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently, I updated the document of KIP-653: Upgrade log4j to > > log4j2 > > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2 > > > > > > > (accepted) > > > > > > > and KIP-719: Add Log4J2 Appender > > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender > > > > > > > (under > > > > > > > discussion) reflecting the recent changes to our codebase. > > > > Especially: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. KIP-653 document > > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2 > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > explains which modules will be migrated and why. > > > > > > > 2. KIP-719 document > > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > explains not only the log4j2-appender plan but also upgrading the > > > > omitted > > > > > > > modules in KIP-653 into log4j2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you can see here, those two KIPs are the different parts of > > the > > > > same > > > > > > > problem. I believe the community will have a good grasp on why > > both > > > > KIPs > > > > > > > are best if released altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will open the voting thread now, and please leave a vote if > > you are > > > > > > > interested in this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Dongjin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:00 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Kafka dev, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I would like to start the discussion of KIP-719: Add Log4J2 > > > > Appender. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> All kinds of feedbacks are greatly appreciated! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > >> Dongjin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> *Dongjin Lee* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > > > > > > >> <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: > > > > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > > > > > > >> <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: > > > > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > > > > > > >> <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: > > > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin > > > > > > >> <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > *Dongjin Lee* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > > > > > > > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: > > > > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > > > > > > > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: > > > > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > > > > > > > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: > > > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin > > > > > > > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *Dongjin Lee* > > > > > > > > > > > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > > > > > > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: > > > > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > > > > > > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: > > > > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > > > > > > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: > > > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin > > > > > > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Dongjin Lee* > > > > > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > > > > > > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > > > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: > > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > > > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: > > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > > > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin > > > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>* > > > > > -- > *Dongjin Lee* > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: speakerdeck.com/dongjin > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
