I guess that log4-core will become: - log4j-core (will depend on log4j-spi) - log4j-spi - log4j-csv - log4j-xml (XmlLayout) - log4j-json (JsonLayout) - log4j-yaml (YamlLayout) - log4j-kafka - log4j-smtp - log4j-jms - log4j-jdbc (or can this be kept in log4j-core?) - log4j-jpa - log4j-zeromq - log4j-server (already done, not yet released) - log4j-tools (command line tools)
Then we should also split log4j-nosql: - log4j-cassandra - log4j-couchdb - log4j-mongodb - log4j-lucene (new, under development) On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > How many new modules are we talking about, concretely? > > Matt mentioned the StackOverflow questions about transitive dependencies > etc, but I imagine splitting log4j-core into 5 or more new modules will > also cause confusion... It won't be trivial for users to figure out which > of the many modules they do or don't need. The coarse granularity of the > current modules is a good thing for users. > > What problem are we trying to solve? And how can we solve it with the least > disruption to our users? > > Would it be an idea, for example, to provide separate jars for the separate > modules, but in addition create a combined jar (log4j-core-all) that > contains all the classes in log4j-core as well as the classes in the new > modules we split out from core? > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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> > > > -- [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.