Hi TengYao, It's a bit difficult to review the KIP. I don't follow most of the motivation. The only one that I follow is:
"Our current build configuration employs fragile dependency management tricks to handle SLF4J backends. We can eliminate these brittle build mechanisms by transitioning to explicit provider dependencies after upgrading to 2.0." Additionally, I don't think we should do the following: "Add other popular slf4j backend binding provider dependencies." A reasonable approach, in my opinion, would be: 1. Include the log4j2 dependency with the server modules and not include them with the client modules. 2. Automatically configure the log4j2 dependency for the server modules. Users can override them via the system property, but they must also add whichever logging library they want to use. 3. Somehow configure slf4j 2.x to work like 1.x out of the box for the client module (for compatibility reasons). But I don't know if `3` is possible. If `3` is not possible, I don't see how we can make this a compatible change. Ismael On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 7:41 PM TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I want to bump this thread manually. > Any feedback or vote would be appreciated. > > Best, > TengYao > > TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月10日 週一 上午11:47寫道： > > > Hello guys, > > I would like to remind you in the vote thread that the KIP has been > > updated, and I apologize for repeating it. > > I have taken over this KIP from Muralidhar. > > Since the original content is outdated as the logging framework has been > > widely changed, I have updated the content of the KIP. > > Please take a look and share your thoughts. > > > > Best Regards, > > TengYao > > > > Muralidhar Basani <muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io.invalid> 於 2024年9月24日 週二 > > 上午5:09寫道： > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I wanted to gently follow up on this thread in case anyone has any > >> thoughts > >> or would like to take a look. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Murali > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:23 AM Muralidhar Basani < > >> muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Chia. > >> > > >> > I have updated KIP with this quote, in the migration plan section. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Murali > >> > > >> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 3:30 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > Muralidhar Basani <muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io.invalid> 於 > 2024年9月15日 > >> >> 晚上9:02 寫道： > >> >> > > >> >> > With this, I think, users don't have to make any explicit changes > in > >> >> their > >> >> > code, if their provider is reload4j. And if it's a different > provider > >> >> (like > >> >> > logback, log4j), they would have to upgrade that to match it with > >> slf4j. > >> >> > >> >> If upgrading the matched provider is the only explicit change and we > >> >> expect users have responsibility to keep consistent version when > using > >> >> other providers , could we write it down to the KIP? > >> >> > >> >> That means we will update slf4j without KIP in the future except for > >> >> specific reason. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> Chia-Ping > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
