I just noticed that Patrick commented on ZOOKEEPER-2342 expressing doubt
about sticking with Log4J, so I want to make sure his perspective gets
included in our thread here. Specifically added him to the To: line.

Chris Nauroth


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:16 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe that Chris points are valid.
>
> My understanding, especially after seeing Andor's patch is that we are
> depending on an implementation in two cases:
> - in some tests (we grab the logs)
> - for the binary tarbal (for real users if the server)
>
> If we could rely on slf4j-simple for the tests (or write a little mock
> binding) then switching will be only a matter of changing the slf4j
> implementation and deal with the configuration files.
>
> I appreciate a lot Andor's work, and the fact that we are finally
> addressing this long standing issue.
>
> Andor,
> What do you think about moving to log4j2?
>
> Personally I don't have much time next week to help, so I am +1 to commit
> Andor's patch and get rid of log4j1.
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Gio 6 Gen 2022, 20:38 Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > Happy New Year, and thank you for driving this, Andor!
> >
> > I am somewhat hesitant about switching direction to Logback:
> > - First, I agree with points already raised by Christopher.
> > - A major reason that my prior work to migrate to Log4J 2 in
> ZOOKEEPER-2342
> > stalled out years ago is backward-incompatibility of the logging
> > configuration files. However, I've just learned that Log4J 2 has added
> > support for compatibility with Log4J 1 style configuration files, so it
> > appears this blocker is now resolved. [1] (I have yet to test the
> > compatibility feature myself.)
> > - I don't think Logback supports compatibility with Log4J style
> > configuration. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If we previously
> > considered it important to preserve compatibility of configuration for
> > system administrators, then it seems we are abandoning that goal now.
> > Perhaps the escape hatch of swapping out the SLF4J provider during
> > deployment is sufficient to address this.
> > - It has taken a long time, but it appears that the wider big data
> > ecosystem is coming around to Log4J 2. Discussion has renewed in Hadoop.
> > Recent HBase releases use Log4J 2. Spark recently committed a Log4J 2
> > migration patch for inclusion in a future release. While integration with
> > the big data ecosystem isn't the sole use case for Zookeeper, it's
> > definitely a major one, and I think it's beneficial for big data
> > deployments to have commonality in the logging infrastructure.
> > - Logback is dual-licensed under LGPL and EPL. [2] LGPL is a category X
> > license that would prevent shipping in Apache releases. [3] EPL is a
> > category B license considered acceptable for inclusion. [4] I've
> personally
> > not dealt with a dual-licensing situation like this before, but my
> > intuition is that we need careful handling in NOTICES.txt to indicate
> that
> > we choose to adopt the terms of EPL, not LGPL.
> >
> > I don't mean to impede progress, and I don't intend to -1 a Logback patch
> > if that's the overall community preference. I've already started code
> > reviewing ZOOKEEPER-4427. I would only ask that we also provide clear
> > documentation for administrators who want to swap to the Log4J 2 provider
> > for compatibility with their existing configuration.
> >
> > Thank you again, Andor. The ZOOKEEPER-4427 patch is looking good so far!
> >
> > [1] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html
> > [2] https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> > [3] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> > Chris Nauroth
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:14 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Happy New Year!
> > >
> > > Logback patch is now ready for review:
> > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1793
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 2021. Dec 21., at 20:44, Brent <brentwritesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the details Andor.  It sounds like you have a good plan
> > in
> > > > place for doing the migration.
> > > >
> > > > I had some open work against ZooInspector that I wanted to do, so it
> > > sounds
> > > > like I'd be best focusing my efforts there and leaving this to you.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your time and help!
> > > >
> > > > ~Brent
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 3:27 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Andor,
> > > >>
> > > >> Il giorno mar 21 dic 2021 alle ore 12:25 Andor Molnar <
> > an...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> ha
> > > >> scritto:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thanks for the feedback Brent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I currently work on the logback patch and identified the following
> > > steps
> > > >>> for migration:
> > > >>> - Replace log4j references with logback counterparts in pom.xml,
> > > >>> - Refactor unit tests which depend on log4j: they create a custom
> > > >>> ByteArrayOutputStream for capturing log messages. I need to dig
> into
> > > >>> logback implementation for this, but not the end of the world.
> > > >>> - Convert log4j.properties files to logback.xml. The online
> > translator
> > > (
> > > >>> https://logback.qos.ch/translator/) is handy, but not perfect, so
> > this
> > > >>> step also needs some manual work.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I’ll probably skip the migration of zookeeper-contrib projects to
> > save
> > > >>> some time. If the community accepts the change, I’ll create further
> > > >> patches
> > > >>> to polish off everything.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Notice that there’s literally no code change is needed in ZK main
> > > >> codebase
> > > >>> which I think is awesome. The bottleneck is the holiday season for
> > me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the update
> > > >>
> > > >> My experience in "embedding" ZK jars in other products  is the same,
> > we
> > > are
> > > >> using slf4j, so we can switch provider very easily
> > > >>
> > > >> looking forward for the patch
> > > >>
> > > >> Enrico
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Can’t say for log4j2, I don’t have experience with that. ZK
> community
> > > was
> > > >>> always reluctant to take that step, perhaps for a reason.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andor
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 2021. Dec 20., at 18:02, Brent <brentwritesc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In case it helps, I did a quick run over the weekend of all the
> > places
> > > >> I
> > > >>>> see "Log4j" mentioned in code and documentation.  This is a naive
> > > >> search
> > > >>> so
> > > >>>> not all of these references are necessarily of equal impact, but I
> > > >>> thought
> > > >>>> it might give some context to the scope of the change.  It also
> > seems
> > > >>> like
> > > >>>> maybe some pieces of the project could be migrated independently
> of
> > > >>> others
> > > >>>> rather than a "big bang" change to everything.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ~Brent
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkCleanup.sh
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkCli.cmd
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkCli.sh
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkEnv.cmd
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkEnv.sh
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkServer.cmd
> > > >>>> zookeeper/bin/zkServer.sh
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/conf/log4j.properties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-fatjar/pom.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/pom.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/JsonGenerator.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/Log4JEntry.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/LogEntry.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/Log4JSource.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/MergedLogSource.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/resources/loggraph-dev.sh
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/main/resources/webapp/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/log4j.properties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-loggraph/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/graph/servlets/ThroughputTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-rest/build.xml
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-rest/ivy.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-rest/conf/log4j.properties
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-rest/pom.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zkfuse/src/log4cxx.properties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/build.xml
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/ivy.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/src/main/resources/log4j.properties
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/pom.xml
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-contrib/zookeeper-contrib-zooinspector/TODO
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/releasenotes.md
> > > >>>>
> > zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperAdmin.md
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperAuditLogs.md
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperInternals.md
> > > >>>>
> zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperJMX.md
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperStarted.md
> > > >>>>
> > zookeeper/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/zookeeperTools.md
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-metrics-providers/zookeeper-prometheus-metrics/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/pom.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/audit/Log4jAuditLogger.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/audit/ZKAuditProvider.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/jmx/ManagedUtil.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumPeerMain.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/ZooKeeperServerMain.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/ZooTrace.java
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE.txt
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/audit/Log4jAuditLoggerTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/audit/StandaloneServerAuditTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumPeerMainMultiAddressTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/QuorumPeerMainTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReadOnlyModeTest.java
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/test/ReconfigExceptionTest.java
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-server/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-recipes/zookeeper-recipes-election/build.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-recipes/zookeeper-recipes-lock/build.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/zookeeper-recipes/zookeeper-recipes-queue/build.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> zookeeper/owaspSuppressions.xml
> > > >>>> zookeeper/pom.xml
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:33 PM Brent <brentwritesc...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Apologies if this is repeated information (I sent some of this to
> > the
> > > >>> user@
> > > >>>>> mailing list).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I understand the arguments for/against Log4j 1.x and won't repeat
> > > them
> > > >>> all
> > > >>>>> here.  It seems like there's still some debate between Log4j2 vs.
> > > >>> Logback
> > > >>>>> too.  Does anyone have a feel for how much effort either of these
> > > >>>>> conversions/upgrades/patches would be (hours? days? weeks?)?
> Would
> > > >> you
> > > >>> all
> > > >>>>> be open to some pull requests to help move the conversation
> > forward?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm asking because I know some more cautious organizations are
> > > >> currently
> > > >>>>> taking action to attempt to mitigate existing ZK installations on
> > > >> their
> > > >>> own
> > > >>>>> (opinions on 1.x aside, it's happening).  Some of those
> > organizations
> > > >>> are
> > > >>>>> also on much older versions of ZK too so there's also the
> question
> > of
> > > >>> which
> > > >>>>> versions are worth updating in addition to 3.8 (3.4? 3.5? 3.6?
> > 3.7?).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I know everyone is pressed for time and I'm looking for ways to
> > help.
> > > >>> I'd
> > > >>>>> be happy to try to pitch in if it would be useful at all.  I just
> > > want
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> make sure I'd be focusing my effort in the right direction.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regardless, thanks for all the time & effort you all put in on
> the
> > > >>>>> project, it's very much appreciated.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ~Brent
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:50 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Gosh, we have a few unit tests with log4j specific code.
> > > >>>>>> I need some free cycles to refactor them properly.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Andor
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 2021. Dec 15., at 14:11, Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Agreed. My choice is not based on the recent vulnerabilities.
> > There
> > > >>>>>>> probably more to come by the way, so this is not the best
> timing
> > > for
> > > >>>>>>> log4j2.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Anyway, the main advantage I see for logback is that it's
> closer
> > to
> > > >>>>>>> log4j1, hence probably easier to migrate to.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ZooKeeper already uses SLF4j so, as you suggested, we should
> > follow
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>> facade / default logging backend approach. Though I believe
> > logback
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>>>> better for the default. Sometimes less is more and in terms of
> > > >>>>>>> vulnerabilities less code has less chance for bugs. If logback
> > has
> > > >> all
> > > >>>>>>> the features which ZooKeeper needs, I think we should choose
> > that.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Andor
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 07:41 -0500, Christopher wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> I think it would be a mistake to use the recently reported
> > > >>>>>>>> vulnerability as a basis for migrating to logback. Any
> > dependency
> > > >> can
> > > >>>>>>>> have a vulnerability, and logback is not substantially
> > different.
> > > >> No
> > > >>>>>>>> dependency is going to be guaranteed vulnerability-free.
> > Switching
> > > >> on
> > > >>>>>>>> that basis is a wild goose chase. What is important is that
> > people
> > > >>>>>>>> respond to vulnerabilities by updating/patching in a timely
> > > manner.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Also, it is my understanding that log4j2 is the evolution of
> > > >> logback
> > > >>>>>>>> and slf4j, incorporating the original enhancements that
> logback
> > > had
> > > >>>>>>>> made as a standard slf4j implementation and incorporating them
> > > back
> > > >>>>>>>> into log4j code, as well as providing a lot of additional very
> > > >> useful
> > > >>>>>>>> features and a huge amount of configuration flexibility.
> > Although
> > > >>>>>>>> logback is probably still suitable, log4j2 seems to be much
> more
> > > >>>>>>>> active, and where the mainline development for Java logging is
> > > >>>>>>>> happening. Moving to logback from log4j2 seems like a step
> > > >> backwards.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Most importantly, though, the actual runtime logging
> > > implementation
> > > >>>>>>>> should be independent from ZooKeeper project development. This
> > > >>>>>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>>> should use slf4j as a logging facade exclusively, and users
> > should
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>>>>> able to use whatever slf4j runtime implementation they want.
> If
> > > >>>>>>>> ZooKeeper wants to choose a simple implementation, it
> shouldn't
> > > use
> > > >>>>>>>> logback, but should use slf4j-simple instead. However, I think
> > it
> > > >>>>>>>> makes more sense to keep log4j2 at runtime for the slf4j
> > > >>>>>>>> implementation. Users can still change it out for whatever
> they
> > > >> want.
> > > >>>>>>>> There's no need to take action to replace the runtime
> > > >> implementation
> > > >>>>>>>> for slf4j, because users can do that if they want... as long
> as
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>>> project itself limits its logging to using the slf4j API.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 6:46 AM Andor Molnar <
> an...@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4427
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 12:35 +0100, Andor Molnar wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll take care of that, but first things first. Look
> > what
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I've
> > > >>>>>>>>>> found when checking the history of the issue.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thumbs-up from Ceki back from 2016:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2342?focusedCommentId=15207288&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-15207288
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> What else do we need? :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Andor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 12:07 +0100, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you like to submit a PR ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Then we can release 3.8.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Enrico
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Il giorno mer 15 dic 2021 alle ore 12:04 Flavio Junqueira
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <f...@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ha scritto:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We use logback in Pravega, it works fine for us. I'd be ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Flavio
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Dec 2021, at 12:02, Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi ZK folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think about migrating ZK to logback?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea just crossed my mind due to the recent
> turbulence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checking some migrating guides, it doesn’t seem the end
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andor
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to