A bit of a sidetrack from the current discussion, but just how big is
log4j-1.3 going to be and just how polluted with 1.2.xx stuff are we going
to make it? Originally, a lot of stuff was refactored and/or removed and
replaced by, arguably, better implementations. Last changes I made, I had
Log4j-1.3 and Log4j-1.2.xx working with LogWeb. I figured that if
something that uses Log4j internals like LogWeb works with both, then 1.3
was good to go.
Now we've got everything from Log4j-1.2.xx coming back into Log4j-1.3, plus
all the changes and additions made for 1.3 in there as well. From my
perspective, maybe the current 1.3 should have just moved to 2.0 and 1.3
should have been developed off the 1.2 branch. 1.3 seems to be turning
into a monster with everything 1.2.xx being added back in to make it binary
compatible. Log4j is already somewhat bloated as it is. Any larger and
its going to burst.
thoughts?
Jake
At 06:21 PM 12/21/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>I prioritized the task list from the previous thread. Not all of
>these are dependent on each other, but I beleive that we should look
>at completing the first 2 before seriously tackling anything else.
>The last 4 could happen in any order and most likely in parallel.
>Documentation will get setup and then be ongoing.
>
>- Restore binary compatibility, restore as much source compatibility as
needed
>- Locking/threading/synchronization issues
>- Packaging changes
>- Build changes (Maven2, etc)
>- Review internal message logging mechanism, too verbose right now
>- Finalize slf4j support: direct or adapter?
>- Documentation - update, get community involved
>- JoranConfigurator review
>- Plugin/PluginRegistery review and implementation
>- Watchdog review and implementation
>- Expression language review
>
>I still like the idea of monthly releases. What's there is there when
>we build. As Jess voiced, I think the goal of the end-of-January
>release should at least be the binary compatibility, maybe even the
>sync issue if we can manage it.
>
>Overall goal for the release should be middle of the 2006. This
>probably means the first beta version sometime in the April/May
>timeframe. I've been very wrong about release timeframes for
>everything from 1.2 releases to the last estimate for 1.3, so I am
>very open to other suggestions and comments here. The goal is to give
>the community time to digest the changes while also moving forward.
>
>Comments? Other tasks? Different prioritization?
>
>-Mark
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
