Hey Gary, *Package Name*
Once every couple of months I found myself helping out people for JAR Hell problems since they included wrong Log4j artifact. The artifact and package names of Log4j 1 and Log4j 2 are pretty similar looking. Hence I really encourage you to explicitly state the version in artifact and package names. For instance, log4j3-core and org.apache.logging.log4j3, etc. It goes without saying, this will also aid SEO too, which is a pain right now. *Allowing Batches in Appender Interface* Is it also possible to extend the Appender interface such that in addition to append(LogEvent), batched append(LogEvent[]), append(LogEvent[], int offset, int length) are allowed as well? For instance, in log4j2-redis-appender I needed to implement my own AsyncAppender logic to push the serialized LogEvent's to Redis in batches. *Merging log4j2-redis-appender to master* Would you consider merging log4j2-redis-appender <https://github.com/vy/log4j2-redis-appender> to master? *Merging log4j2-logstash-layout to master* Given its garbage-free superior performance and schema customization support, would you consider merging log4j2-logstash-layout <https://github.com/vy/log4j2-logstash-layout/tree/json-generator> to master? We can rebrand it as the next JSONLayout and provide pre-cooked schemas for common use cases, for instance, a schema of the old JSONLayout, a schema for the pretty common Logstash event layout v1 <https://github.com/logstash/log4j-jsonevent-layout>, etc. Best. On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:01 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 >
