hi Ismael

thanks for all your response.

> All that said, I am not actually sure we can do what I described above
while maintaining the compatibility required by a minor release.

Excuse me, are your concerns related to version matching, as discussed in
[0]? If so, I concur that this represents a compatibility issue, and the
target version for this change should be 5.0. Additionally, there was a
related discussion previously documented in [1]. While we have not strictly
enforced version matching during prior SLF4J updates, this KIP provides an
opportunity to establish guidelines for upgrading sl4fj that have direct
compatibility implications.

[0] https://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#compatibility
[1] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16324#discussion_r1644671854

To Teng

Could you please revise the KIP according to following benefit?

> The key benefit of this KIP is that you can add new logging backends and
select it via a config. This is how most pluggable things work. But it is
*not* how slf4j 1.x works. slf4j 1.x requires you to *remove* the default
logging library picked by the project as well. That's much more intrusive.

Best,
Chia-Ping

Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> 於 2025年3月20日 週四 上午8:10寫道:

> Hi Chia-Ping,
>
> I don't think we're in the business of shipping multiple logging libraries.
> Here's my take:
>
> 1. We should pick one logging library for services/servers, ship it and
> include a configuration file for it.
> 2. For clients, we leave it to the users to select the logging library -
> clients run alongside applications and it's desirable to use the same
> logging library for both (if we were starting from scratch, we may have
> decided to also include our default logging library for clients as well,
> but it's hard to make that change now).
> 3. For the cases where users want to use a different logging library for
> services/servers (perhaps because they have standardized on a different
> logging library), they would have to add the additional jar to the
> classpath and change the relevant logging config. This is no different than
> adding a different authorizer or any other pluggable component.
>
> The key benefit of this KIP is that you can add new logging backends and
> select it via a config. This is how most pluggable things work. But it is
> *not* how slf4j 1.x works. slf4j 1.x requires you to *remove* the default
> logging library picked by the project as well. That's much more intrusive.
>
> All that said, I am not actually sure we can do what I described above
> while maintaining the compatibility required by a minor release.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 2:03 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi Ismael
> >
> > > but they must also add whichever logging library they want to use.
> >
> > If users are required to modify JAR files to alter the SLF4J provider,
> the
> > value of this KIP is significantly diminished. I believe the primary
> > benefit of this KIP lies in enabling users to configure a system property
> > for SLF4J provider changes without JAR modifications. Furthermore, by
> > managing all SLF4J and provider JARs within Kafka, we can ensure SLF4J
> > version updates without compatibility concerns, as we can guarantee
> > provider JAR consistency with the SLF4J version in the distribution.
> >
> > Best,
> > Chia-Ping
> >
> > Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> 於 2025年3月19日 週三 下午12:00寫道:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to