Not sure what's happening but: http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies.html
is not there. On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > 2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>: >> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >>> I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix >>> for the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency >>> with parallel builds and who knows what else. This will patch/change #5 and >>> many hours of trying to get SLF4J Simple to work but I think we're pushing >>> the simple implementation beyond its scope. So I'd just like to put in >>> Logback and be done with it. >>> >>> There are at least three of us opposed to using a new logging framework, >> logging *implementation*, please, not framework: the framework is slf4j-api, >> on which our code will have much dependency. The logging implementation is >> far >> less invasive choice (even if not completely null). >> >>> but I don't think there is anyone against using Logback. >> why this provocation? (should I say lack of respect for others opinion?) >> >>> I honestly don't think >>> there is any rational argument for not using Logback, so after doing all >>> the SLF4J work and making a best effort to use SLF4J Simple I think it's >>> pointless to pursue that path any longer and put in Logback. >> we'll need to wait for 3.1.1 and a vote to have a chance to stop tension >> about >> this: whatever choice is done, there will be some devs unhappy who will have >> to live with it >> >> notice I won't be able to reply for the next half day, my intent with this >> reply is just to avoid one more re-spin of a feeling that the vote won't >> happen and let Olivier once more jump on the case >> I just hope I won't have to read a lot of replies to this tonight when I'm >> back from work and loose my time carefully reading if anything new or >> interesting is written >> > > I have already explained my opinion. > Folks think log4j2 is "immature" and/or don't have a community of > various people. > > Furthermore it looks it's not anymore possible to use "immature" > libraries in core (whereas it has been done for more important part: > sisu or aether). > > But now that's not anymore possible... > Well things evolve and POV can change that's the life.... > > BTW due to our policy [1] and if I correctly read license here [2] a > vote is mandatory. (and don't ask me to start this vote :-) ). > > Cheers > -- > Olivier > [1] http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies > [2] http://logback.qos.ch/license.html > >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >>> On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm a little bit lost too. >>>> Thus for now in 3.1.0 we didn't want to provide a new logging impl fwk >>>> (for >>>> many - good - reasons) but the last bug discovered by Kristian can be >>>> solved only >>>> * by having a fix from slf4j (but it isn't sure that the patch makes sense >>>> - to be validated by Ceki) >>>> * or by using a more evolved impl like logback (or log4j ...). >>>> I think that everyone's will prefer the first solution if possible but if >>>> we cannot we'll have the question to select the impl. >>>> Do we need to vote ? Is there really a question logback vs log4j(2) ? >>>> Like I said in another thread I'll understand if the project decide to >>>> choose log4j2 even if it is young because we want to support another ASF >>>> initiative (And I'm sure we won't have to regret it, and we'll have a >>>> really good support from its team) but in a general case I would prefer to >>>> choose logback which is today the reference logging framework (I that case >>>> we need to have a PMC vote to accept an external component under EPL >>>> license http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies ?). >>>> >>>> What do we need (for 3.1.0) ? What do we do ? >>>> >>>> Arnaud >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: >>>>> Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to add my >>>>> perspective on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of the more >>>>> advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already also >>>>> stated. >>>>> Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while we >>>>> investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then select >>>>> an >>>>> implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple can't >>>>> do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option >>>>> unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies? I'll >>>>> leave that to others working with that to decide. >>>>> >>>>> But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my choice >>>>> would >>>>> be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being a past >>>>> experience where I developed an audit logging solution based on logback, >>>>> where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies when it came >>>>> to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with this fixed >>>>> though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when there is >>>>> proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that he will >>>>> help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working with log4j2 >>>>> will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I know >>>>> Ceki's. >>>>> >>>>> But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would be so much >>>>> better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release and >>>>> do >>>>> a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although using >>>>> slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching impl >>>>> later >>>>> on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some people do >>>>> solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar plugin >>>>> for >>>>> example). >>>>> >>>>> /Anders >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly < >>>>> >>>>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >>>>>>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org <javascript:;>>: >>>>>>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2. >>>>>>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy. >>>>>>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it. >>>>>>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in case of any >>>>>>>> issue we could have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is actually >>>>>>> going, but I'm firmly opposed >>>>>>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>>> Kristian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org<javascript:;> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. >>> >>> -- Benjamin Franklin >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > > > -- > Olivier Lamy > Talend: http://coders.talend.com > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- We know what we are, but know not what we may be. -- Shakespeare
