Thanks Chris, et. al. I have been monitoring this thread already, but I appreciate you following up. :-)
I checked out the log4j2 source repo as part of my remediation efforts inside my employer. tbh I was/am shocked at the amount of code and esp the number of dependencies, for something that should be as simple as a logging library. Hence my concern and why I commented on ZOOKEEPER-2342 recently - I still have the same goal as that comment - that we review our use of logging infra and make sure log4j2 is a good fit rather than moving to something else. Given our close ties with the Hadoop community I think it also makes sense to look at what they are doing before making any changes. We have many "customers" - as such backward compatibility should be a requirement. I also see that there is interest (upstream/apache I mean) in resurrecting log4j1 - imo that could also be a good path for us. EOD I reflect what Enrico mentioned (and he covered well, hence you didn't see me respond, "me too" it) - appreciate all the work on this - which is already including thoughts/discussion on where to go, iow the heart of my comment. Regards, Patrick On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:35 AM Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
