We should have consensus on the big picture here... are we all Ok with the idea of all modules only having _required_ dependencies?
Gary On Apr 25, 2017 6:57 AM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nice analysis Mikael! > > I'm a bit fuzzy on log4j-spi, what was that for again? The list says "core > will depend on spi" but I think it's worth making an effort to ensure that > basic (file) logging behavior only needs core+API... Why does spi need to > be separated from core? > > My first thought about jdbc was that since jdbc doesn't require external > dependencies we should probably leave it in core. I guess it depends on > what we're trying to achieve with (or how far we want to take) the > modularization: do we want to reduce core to its absolute minimum or are we > aiming to split off external dependencies? > > Looking at the list I can see how many of these make sense and at the same > time I'm thinking, that's a lot of modules! :-) > > Remko > > > (Shameless plug) Every main() method deserves http://picocli.info > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 18:51, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> > wrote: > > > > 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. >
