+1 While I agree that it can be useful, it was never really in a state where it is. I think it has a lot of good ideas, but to make it more modern and practical it needs to have a much better workflow.
I may mess around with it more at some point, but it would take a lot to be practical. If there is a concerted effort in the future to improve it by people who do find it useful, I would definitely be open to looking at it again. -Robert Middleton On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:56 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > +1 > > Allow me to make some corrections: > > `XmlLayout` is dropped in Log4j 3, not in Log4j 2. > > Logstash (the L in the ELK, Elasticsearch-Logstash-Kibana, stack) supports > reading logs from a file formatted using a particular pattern. You combine > Filebeat with grok filter > <https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/logstash/current/advanced-pipeline.html> > to achieve that. > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:19 AM Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for spending time working on it Christian. > > > > I started contributing to Chainsaw in 2003. I agree. It's time. > > > > The primary benefit of Chainsaw was its built-in support for real-time > > tailing of ssh-accessible pattern-layout based logs - something > > Kibana doesn't support well, and something no-one ever really > > understood about it. > > > > It was always a dev-focused tool - it works great for local dev, and > > works in some prod envs, if you spend enough time to get the setup to > > work. > > > > There was no great reason to move off of the log41 deps really - they > > aren't used for anything other than parsing the patternlayout, but > > log4j1 is dead, so I get it. > > > > I use it for my work, and will continue to do so, but the > > chainsaw-with-log4j1-dep branch. I may revert master back to that, > > because why not. > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks again for putting up with my persistence to try and make it > > useful to folks - I appreciate it :) > > > > Scott > > > > > > On 2/6/24, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hello > > > > > > we have had Chainsaw for a long time in our product list, and I can > > totally > > > see that some - myself included - are emotionally attached to it. > > However, > > > due to my work on it, I have given it some additional thought. > > > > > > After working with the Chainsaw code base for a while, I saw that many > > > features were commented out and removed when migrating to Log4j 2. > > > > > > Some basic features, such as "Open Logfile to view it directly." were > > > removed. It is already hard to recover the functionality since > > log4j-extras > > > no longer exists. In addition, as I learned recently, Log4j 2 has removed > > > the XML Formatter. The old implementation of Chainsaw could only open > > > XML-formatted log files. > > > > > > Honestly, there is much work to make Chainsaw a working product again. I > > > mostly did refactorings and clean-ups, but I am not even through. I could > > > continue like this for two more months. > > > > > > Restoring the old functionality and making it functional again requires > > even > > > more months. > > > If we had completed it, we would have restored a Swing application, > > mostly > > > replaced by Kibana stacks. > > > > > > At this point, I don't see how we can write the tons of code necessary, > > and > > > also not how useful it would be. Either all our users are using Log4j 1, > > or > > > we don't have any users at all for Chainsaw, since it didn't work. > > > > > > For that reason, I would like to propose to move Chainsaw to dormant. If > > we > > > feel for it, we can work and fix it - we should not archive the repo. > > But I > > > would like to make clear that Chainsaw is not in good shape, and people > > > should only use it only "at their own risk." > > > > > > I would like to make clear that this proposal is not something I say > > easily, > > > but I feel it is in the best interest of our users to communicate how we > > > currently see the status of this project. > > > > > > Please note, that I don't have much time to continue to work on it in the > > > next months. > > > > > > Remembering the last discussion about this: Scott, are you OK with that > > > move? I know it's your baby, but as long as we don't have a working > > product, > > > we should move it. I am open to moving it back when we somehow get rid of > > > all the problems. > > > > > > Please let me know if one of you has an alternate proposal - we can also > > > discuss it in the next call. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Christian > > > > > > -- > > > The Apache Software Foundation > > > V.P., Data Privacy > > > > >
