I’d have to look at it again but I suspect there might be a way that we could create a version of AppenderSkeleton that works with Log4j 2. The problem is that people were accessing the internals of Log4j so that even if we could provide support for those signatures I am not sure they would really work.
As far as stats go, I tend to look at https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat <https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat> which shows download stats from Maven Central. There log4j 2 has been gaining on log4j 1 but still has a ways to go. FWIW, there is no way that there are more dependencies on log4j-core than on log4j-api since log4j-api is always required. I suspect the GitHub stats might only show direct dependencies and so the log4j-api numbers are too low. Ralph > On Aug 29, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it > had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is > for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats: > > * log4j-api about 51k: > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D > * log4j-core about 69k: > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D > > Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats: > > * log4j 1.x about 298k (!): > https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D > * commons-logging about 95k: > https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D > * slf4j-api about 319k (!!): > https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D > * logback-core about 61k: > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D > * logback-classic about 148k: > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D > > It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all > think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the > zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that > these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though > that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various > Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or > even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and > suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)? > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
