Curt Arnold wrote:
As far as I can tell, there is no significant practical advantage to our
user community to do a direct implementation of SLF4J in log4j over the
facade implementation provided by slf4j.org. I have never seen a
significant performance difference between the two approaches and a
direct implementation has several strong negatives to the log4j
community and users that have been previously discussed.
However, I could see a significant political advantage to SLF4J to have
an implicit endorsement from the ASF and in my mind that is what this
proposal is about. In my mind, java.util.logging has already won the
API standardization war years ago, but it has been mostly limited the
available appenders and configurators. One of the design goals
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-5) for log4j 2.0 is to
have the back-end classes independent of the API, so that the bulk of
log4j 2 is isolated from the client's API choice.
I would like to remind you that there would not be a "log4j brand"
without my work. Excluding chainsaw, I wrote 95% of log4j code and
documentation and spent an order of magnitude more time on log4j than
all the other contributors, including yourself, combined. Flaunting
the log4j brand in my face is shameless.
Since you arrived and filibustered the log4j project, it has gone
nowhere. We used make log4j releases regularly. Now we are lucky if
there is one release a year. We used to have a new committer once a
semester. Log4j project was joined only by one new committer in the
last 4 years, namely Ralh. All log4j comitters, excluding Ralph, but
including you, have been nominated by me. Accusing me of wanting to
get political advantage at the expense of Apache and the log4j brand,
is shameless.
If the current majority of log4j committers wish to continue the
status quo, than that's that. However, I propose a path whereby log4j
would converge on SLF4J, an established and popular API. This will
make life easier for thousands of java developers. I wish more of them
could speak up. If you really think that "java.util.logging has
already won the API standardization war years ago" (quoting your own
words) then none of this matters to you. By the way, how can you say
such thing as logging PMC chair, especially since only a small
minority of Java projects use j.u.l.?
We used to have elections for PMC chair every year. There has not been
any since you were elected in 2005. Why is that?
Why hasn't log4j evolved in the last 4 years? Is it because you don't
want it to evolve?
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
