At 07:07 PM 4/2/2007, you wrote:
>At some point we can no longer ignore the decision about where 1.3
>should go.
>
>I am beginning to think that we should scale back 1.3 to be less of
>the planned revolution and more of a substantial-update-but-
>completely-backward compatible (to a point).
>
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be more of a dead end than
anything else. Some interesting things went into it, but the fact
that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx is a real
problem. Is it worth a release or do we just leave it as-is, forever
alpha, and move on to 2.0?
>We can then step back and think way beyond 1.3 and come up with a new
>vision for what we think is important in enterprise logging.
>
>Firstly, what do people think of this idea?
>
As long as we're considering things that have been ignored for a
while, what is our official take on Logback? It's basically a
realization of what Log4j-1.3 was supposed to be, no? Do we really
have plans to best it as Log4j-2.0? I'm not saying we don't. I'm
just asking the question. And what are we going to do about
SLF4J? It's gained significant acceptance and we've punted on how we
are going to approach it; implement it directly, write a wrapper for
it (actually, this has already been done by the SLF4J team), or
ignore it altogether. So far, we've chosen the latter as the path of
least resistance.
>Secondly, what do people think is left to do before preparing for a
>fully supported 1.3 release ?
>
Do we want to "fully support" 1.3 or just move on? Log4j-1.3 is much
larger than 1.2 because of, among other things, Joran. Joran in 1.3
was Ceki's brainchild and continued development of it has long since
moved to Logback. I'd be more comfortable letting Logback developers
maintain the official version and use it instead of maintaining it
ourselves. I can't recall where I read it, but I believe it was
stated that Joran could be used in other projects, separate from
Logback. Of course, then why not just use Logback? Unless people
are truly prepared to put in the time to figure out what the future
of Log4j should be (and implement it), I'm afraid that Log4j-1.2.xx
is the end of the line, though I'm completely open to being proved wrong.
>Third, who in the dev community (not just committers) is prepared to
>provide some effort in this regard.
>
That's the perennial problem, isn't it?
Jake
>cheers,
>
>Paul
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
