I guess this means that a plugin only needs to depend on log4j-spi (and probably on log4j-api), not on log4j-core or anything else log4j-*.
That would be good. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Keeping configuration/plugin processing code inside log4j-spi should > probably be marked clearly which classes are public APIs and which aren't > then. I'm not sure how many classes would need to be moved around, but that > will require some experimentation to figure out anyways. > > On 24 April 2017 at 04:38, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> > wrote: > > > I fully agree with Matt's both proposals. > > > > I'm skeptic to creating more repositories (than we already have) though. > I > > think that we should start by splitting out modules from log4j-core and > > keep those modules in the main repository with synchronized versioning > and > > releases, at least for the 2.9 release. We can always move those modules > to > > other repositories later if we want to. > > > > It is a lot of administrative work to create a new repository (as we have > > seen for log4j-scala), I don't want us to do all that work over and over > > again unless really necessary. > > > > We have a JIRA ticket for this: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1650 > > > > I have already started by breaking out log4j-server: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851 > > > > I think the next step is to break out plugins (layouts and appenders) > with > > optional 3rd party dependencies into their own modules. > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think I brought this topic up like 3 years ago when I was working on > > > initial OSGi support, but now that we have 3 more years worth of code > > > additions and optional features, I think this might be a more > appropriate > > > time to discuss it again in light of experience. > > > > > > Building log4j-core itself already takes a long time, and many plugins > > > aren't updated very often at all. In the past, requiring users to > simply > > > add log4j-core plus any transitive dependencies to use optional > features > > > seemed to work well enough, but I still think that's a confusing > > > distribution mechanism as demonstrated by the numerous bug reports and > > > Stack Overflow posts regarding missing transitive dependencies for > > various > > > features. I spent some time experimenting with Log4j Boot a little > while > > > ago to help alleviate this problem, but this may be unnecessary if we > can > > > agree to modularize log4j-core itself. > > > > > > I have two different proposals, both of which can be used at the same > > time. > > > > > > 1. Split out everything from log4j-core that requires 3rd party > > > dependencies (except for AsyncLogger, though perhaps we could consider > > > shading and renaming those classes like some other low level libraries > do > > > with JCTools). Ideally, I'd like to see each module have required > > > dependencies instead of optional ones, so that if, for instance, I > > include > > > a "log4j-config-yaml" dependency, I know that Log4j will support YAML > > > configuration without having to specify the individual Jackson > > > dependencies. > > > > > > 2. Split out from log4j-core a sort of log4j-spi module which defines > > > interfaces, abstract classes, and annotations for plugins that would be > > > promoted to the same level of backwards compatibility guarantees as > > > log4j-api. This would aid in cementing what we really wish to maintain > > > compatibility with in the backend while allowing other modules to have > > less > > > strict guarantees. > > > > > > With proposal #1, I'd think that we could more easily start moving > > modules > > > into separate repositories and release trains. Without #2, though, this > > > makes version support more annoying to handle, but that's what we'll > face > > > regardless as we separate more repositories. If we go this route, then > > > there will be no need for a Log4j Boot subproject. > > > > > > What do you all think? > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > [image: MagineTV] > > > > *Mikael Ståldal* > > Senior software developer > > > > *Magine TV* > > mikael.stal...@magine.com > > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may > not > > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > > email. > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior software developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal...@magine.com Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
