Ralph Goers wrote:

> 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.

Point well taken. Admittedly, I can be a bottleneck. Nevertheless, the
ASF model where there is no official leader has issues of its own. Do
you think you'd have less trouble getting the RFC 5424 idea pushed
through quickly at log4j-...@? As I said in another occasion, the
RFC 5424 idea is good, except that it's seems like a big step and I
need some time to digest it. Don't lose hope just yet.

> 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.

Looking at the bigger picture, the log4j community would render a big
service to the java world by aligning itself with the SLF4J API
because logging in java is in need of consolidation.  However, the
extent of the service is diminishing by the week as more and more
projects migrate to SLF4J. By the time this is obvious to everyone,
the exercise will become largely pointless and tragically so.

--
Ceki

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org

Reply via email to