Il Gio 8 Ott 2020, 20:24 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> ha scritto: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 11:00 AM Tamas Penzes <tam...@cloudera.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I would open a discussion about log4j2 update. > > Would we consider going up to log4j2 in a minor release (e.g. 3.7) or > only > > in a major one, like 4.0? > > The latest log4j1 version (1.2.17) is really old and vulnerable, but > log4j2 > > has a different config format, which means users should adopt their > config > > files when updating ZooKeeper. > > Afaik we are compatible with both of them because of slf4j, but the > default > > is log4j1 at the moment. > > > > What do you think about going up to log4j2 with 3.7? >
I am fine with 3.7. As we are using slf4j users will be able to revert just by trading the appropriate jars inside the lib directory. > > > > Tamaas there's lots of background on this jira: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2342 > In particular concern with b/w compat. There is also a patch attached. > > Is there a way we can provide run time selection without impacting code in > a non-bw compatible way? Have other projects been able to solve this? > The main concern is about the logging configuration file on the server, isn't it? I don't know if it is common to override it. On the client side it is slf4j that rules. Enrico > Patrick > > > > Thanks, Tamaas > > >
