On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > Thank you for your comments. Let me respond to each in turn. > > 1) For your information, as of version 0.9.18 released a few days ago, > logback is dual-licensed under both the LGPL *and* the EPL (Eclipse > Public License). > > 2) Logback is driven by a BDFL, that would me, following many of the > open-source principles prevalent at the ASF. The working relationships > within logback community, with at least 5 active participants from > different horizons, are very good if not excellent. You are welcome to > join and I think you should.
This is actually my biggest issue with Logback (and SLF4J). I've been thinking recently of starting work on Log4j 2.0 simply because I do not like the "community" model of Logback. This is no criticism of you - it should go without saying that you are extremely talented. But there have been times when you have been on vacation and nothing can happen. Plus having to get your approval for everything is extremely frustrating. So although there are at least 5 active participants, of which I am one, we are not necessarily happy or satisfied participants. Oh the issue of developing log4j 2.0, my expectation is that it would be largely incompatible with log4j 1.2. I would anticipate that the api would either use SLF4J or, more likely, start from the existing SLF4J code and modify to take advantage of Java 5+ features. The internals of log4j need a large overhaul to fix locking issue by taking advantage of java.util.concurrent and many of the features present in logback need to be added. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
