Yes, that's basically my assessment too. Copy-pasting my earlier comment from ZOOKEEPER-1371:
"After this patch, ZooKeeper no longer produces any logging, because there is no SLF4J binding jar available on the runtime classpath." There is no compatibility problem with switching to SLF4J exclusively as our API of choice for logging instead of calling the Log4J API. The incompatible part is that the distro isn't shipping with any SLF4J binding included. Perhaps we can do a partial revert of just that part of ZOOKEEPER-1371. --Chris Nauroth On 3/15/16, 11:54 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hm, I started looking at the original patch in more depth: >https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12773684/ZOOKEEPER-1371-0 >5.patch > >is the real root issue 2342 is trying to address the following line >change: > >- <dependency org="org.slf4j" name="slf4j-log4j12" rev="1.7.5" >transitive="false"/> >+ <dependency org="org.slf4j" name="slf4j-log4j12" rev="1.7.5" >transitive="false" conf="test->default"/> > >Specifically that we changed from runtime to test only for this >dependency? Perhaps we just need to revert that? I see some other >magic happening in the build.xml file that I don't quite understand - >adding a new target and NoLog4j... references. > >Raul perhaps you can give more insight since it seems like you worked >on 1371 most recently? > >Patrick > > >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Chris Nauroth ><[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree. Even if we don't fully understand every minute technical >>detail >> of Log4J 2 vs. Log4J 1, I think we've learned enough from my >> work-in-progress patch to declare that a migration is too risky for the >> 3.5 line. Reverting ZOOKEEPER-1371 (the earlier backwards-incompatible >> logging change) is the better choice for the interest of proceeding with >> 3.5 releases. >> >> --Chris Nauroth >> >> >> >> >> On 3/15/16, 11:23 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>I just commented on ZOOKEEPER-2342... not sure I fully understand all >>>the issues to be honest. Given how much we're trying to do in 3.5 it >>>seems like it would be prudent to wait on 1371 until 3.6... IMO. :-) >>> >>>Patrick >>> >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Chris Nauroth >>><[email protected]> wrote: >>>> At this point, I am +1 for a revert of the patch that introduced the >>>> problem (ZOOKEEPER-1371). We need more time to come up with a >>>>migration >>>> path to Log4J 2 that minimizes impact on operators. That will take >>>>time, >>>> and I'd prefer that we don't hold up 3.5.2-alpha for it. >>>> >>>> --Chris Nauroth >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/15/16, 11:08 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi folks, can we prioritize getting logging fixed? It's causing test >>>>>failures, e.g.: >>>>>https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2850/artifact/trunk/buil >>>>>d/ >>>>>tm >>>>>p/zk.log >>>>> >>>>>This is the jira: >>>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2342 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps we should revert the change that caused this in the first >>>>>place. >>>>> >>>>>Patrick >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
