On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 11:19 AM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> The socket appender already has the ability to reconnect. It just needs to > ability to load balance or send to an alternate host if the connection > fails. > Sure, I just would like reconnection and failover to be abstracted in our core framework so that each connector does not have to re-invent the wheel. Gary > > Ralph > > > On Nov 6, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Speaking of failover kind of things, the JMS Appender has a reconnect > > feature and I am wrapping up a similar feature for the JDBC Appender. > This > > kind of feature is a MUST for services that need to stay up and running > for > > longer periods of time. > > > > It would be nice to have a reconnect feature abstracted out so that all > > appenders/managers that depend on external resources can survive these > > resources going up and down as well as internet connections going up and > > down. That would make it much easier to implement this in all appenders > > that need it. A start would be to abstract JMS and JDBC reconnect code. > > Testing this is quite tricky of course. > > > > Gary > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:33 PM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Some other features I need/want to do: > >> > >> 1. LOG4J2-1137 > >> 2. Allow the SocketAppender to specify multiple IP addresses and allow > >> either round-robining through them or failing to the next if the first > >> fails. This will provide better high availability for applications. > >> 3. Support a ContextSelector based on Module Layers. > >> 4. LOG4J2-2170 > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 9:22 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> How much are we impacting the API? I don’t know that package naming is > >> required if the API is compatible. I am hoping this doesn’t impact the > API > >> much. > >>> > >>> I’d prefer this just be log4j 3.x. Log4j 2 3.x is just really weird. > >>> > >>> I wouldn’t say a module shouldn’t have any optional dependencies but it > >> should be as few as possible. That said, because java is now > modularized > >> and you only get java.base by default I think log4j-core should only > >> require that. This would mean probably only the Properties configuration > >> can remain in core. > >>> > >>> I’m not completely sold on replacing the configuration with Jackson or > >> Commons Configuration. First, I really like that we convert the > >> configuration to a node tree and then process the node tree the same way > >> regardless of the configuration syntax used to construct it. Since we > >> already use Jackson for JSON and YAML I am not sure what it means to > redo > >> the configuration to use something we are already using. > >>> > >>> I would like to have every Maven module be a JPMS module, but this may > >> still be impossible to do as not all of our dependencies have declared > >> module names yet. For example, > >> https://github.com/LMAX-Exchange/disruptor/issues/234 < > >> https://github.com/LMAX-Exchange/disruptor/issues/234> shows the > >> disruptor still hasn’t done anything. > >>> > >>> For me, the main goal would be just “cleaning up” so the modules have > >> fewer dependencies. This also should align nicely with generating JPMS > >> modules. > >>> > >>> I do have new features I want to add and they don’t really require 3.0 > >> to do them, but I would really like to provide good reasons to upgrade > to > >> log4j 3.x besides internal cleanup. > >>> > >>> One new feature that is a high priority for me is to make Log4j more > >> “cloud friendly”. This means being able to read and dynamically update > the > >> logging configuration from something like Spring Cloud Configuration. > >> Essentially this just means being able to read and monitor a file via > HTTP > >> instead of using only the File API. > >>> > >>> Also, I’d like to make another pass at performance testing to see where > >> we still have room for improvement. > >>> > >>> I would really, like to figure out a way to include location > information > >> in the log events without the overhead we have now. The only sane way > to do > >> it is to somehow get the information at compile time, but I just haven’t > >> been able to figure out a clever hack to make it work. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 2:01 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Considerations for 3.0: > >>>> > >>>> - Currently targeting Java 8, seems OK to keep this for now. > >>>> - Remove deprecated code > >>>> - Make BC-breaking changes as we see fit to improve impl. > >>>> - ? Update root package to include "3" to allow Log4j 1, 2, and 3 to > >>>> co-exist peacefully on the claspath. Perhaps > org.apache.logging.log4j3. > >>>> - Do we need a compatibility layer for 1.2 to 3.0 and 2.x to 3.0? > >>>> - Where can we use java.time? > >>>> - Is it a goal to have Maven modules with NO optional dependencies? I > >> think > >>>> so. > >>>> - Play nice in the Java 9 module system > >>>> - Continue to break up current Maven modules > >>>> - How can we make Core smaller? > >>>> - Should we redo our config code to use something like Jackson or > >> Commons > >>>> Configuration? We have a lot of config code... Not sure if everything > >> you > >>>> can do in XML is doable in JSON and YAML. YAML is gross IMO but some > >> people > >>>> like it. > >>>> > >>>> What else? > >>>> > >>>> Gary > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
