Would any of those projects be willing to maintain a Log4j-related component that was born and raised in the Log4j land? I think that is pretty wishful thinking, though feel free to give it a try. I support any initiative that would lower the maintenance burden without hindering the development of Log4j. Does anybody volunteer to raise this subject in the associated mailing lists?
I am not concerned about the `log4j-core` API stability, I think we do a good job there. > ... if the upstream projects don't want them, then those modules get EOL'd and removed for 3.x Umm... I don't think that is a nice way to treat our existing users. (Ralph would disagree anyway. In fact, I am surprised he hasn't reacted yet.) I would rather move these to separate repositories and maintain them there. For those interested in this route, please start another thread. For inspiration, see my earlier posts <https://lists.apache.org/thread/8rflqfctmpd79h11o78zkfymtn6g9sds>. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:17 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > I was wondering if you'd all be on board for 3.x to try and move some > of our 3rd party integration plugins to their respective projects > rather than maintaining them here. For example, all the networked > appender plugins and other plugins that typically require a third > party client library or driver would be more appropriately located > with their respective dependencies. A concrete example would be moving > the Flume appender to Apache Flume once they're finished with 1.10.0 > which is under review right now. While we'd keep releasing this > appender in 2.x, come 3.x, we'd be able to point to the official Flume > plugin instead. The same idea could apply to numerous plugins such as: > > * Cassandra appender -> Apache Cassandra > * Flume appender -> Apache Flume > * JDBC/JPA appenders -> ? (Eclipse Jakarta perhaps?) > * JMS appender (could go to ActiveMQ or Jakarta) > * Kafka appender -> Apache Kafka > * MongoDB appenders -> MongoDB? > * CouchDB appenders -> Apache CouchDB > * SMTP appender -> makybe Jakarta? > * ZeroMQ appender -> ZeroMQ project? > * Spring integration stuff -> Spring project > * Liquibase binding -> Liquibase > > I imagine it makes some sense to continue publishing our -web and > -appserver modules as they're more specific to hooking log4j-core into > those things, but I'm open to other ideas there. > > For any plugins we're trying to move, if the upstream projects don't > want them, then those modules get EOL'd and removed for 3.x. >
