I agree with Ralph here. I'm sure we'll figure out rather quickly which modules are easy to put into rarely updated repositories.
On 24 April 2017 at 11:39, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I would prefer a hybrid approach. First things should be moved to > separate modules. Then, if they don’t seem to be modified frequently they > can be moved to a separate repo. For example, I think it would be OK for > the Flume Appender to be in a separate repo. It hasn’t changed in quite a > while and I can’t remember the last time it was modified due to changes in > Log4j it has and while continue to change with changes made in Flume > releases. I imagine we have quite a few components that are similar. > > Ralph > > > On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2017 2:38 AM, "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. > > > > > > I do not like more repos either. Since we have already gone down the more > > modules road, I say we keep going. > > > > Gary > > > > > > 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>
