We are going to have to prefix "module" with "Java" or "Maven" in discussions and documentation to avoid confusion from now on...
Gary On Apr 25, 2017 10:59 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you browse around the Java 9 javadocs, you'll see that they split things > up by module there as well. With that in mind, hopefully it's not too > complicated to support. What I really want to see is inter-module links > (both Java modules and Maven modules that is) work properly. > > On 25 April 2017 at 11:49, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > Ouch. This is where it gets messy. Currently, the javadoc is built > > independently for each module. I’m not sure how to aggregate them all > > together but I’m sure Java 9 must be doing that with all the modules they > > are supporting. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When adding new modules to the main repo, does each module need its own > > > site directory? > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mikael Ståldal < > > mikael.stal...@magine.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, they should stay in the main repo, at least for the time being. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> And all of that should stay in the same repo IMO. > > >>> > > >>> Gary > > >>> > > >>> On Apr 25, 2017 2:51 AM, "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. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> [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. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > [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> >
