I am also interested in 2.0 (and already have commit rights), but have had very little time. Although Logback is superior to Log4j 1.x I do believe signficant improvements could still be made. In addition, I dislike immensely the benevolent dictatorship model if for no other reason than when Ceki goes on vacation the project does too. If Log4j 2.0 started out as a complete rip-off of Logback (which I wouldn't advocate) I would recommend it over Logback simply for that reason.
Ralph On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Yes, I am interested in moving Log4J along to 2.0. > > Gary Gregory > [email protected] > [email protected] > www.seagullsoftware.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 09:13 >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Re: Future development of Log4J? >> >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to bring up the old discussion on future Log4J >> development again. I think christmas killed it before there was an >> satisfying conclusion. I was basically asking if Log4J is dead or not; >> several opinions rose. There is logback as a stable project, >> implementing the meanwhile wellknown SLF4J API. >> >> Curt showed me a bunch of mails/tickets in Jira for a possible >> redesign of Log4J known as 2.0 >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Curt Arnold <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> The JIRA tracker for log4j2 has captured some potential design goals >> at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2. >>> >>> Here are some posts to start as a reading list for the backstory >> (reverse chronological order): >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=log4j-user&m=125725041724346&w=2 >>> http://marc.info/?t=122830451800001&r=1&w=2 >>> http://marc.info/?t=121385743100001&r=1&w=2 >>> http://marc.info/?t=121094847000005&r=1&w=2 >>> >>> That should be enough to get started as they should contain links to >> older articles. >> >> Some people thought it might be a good idea to continue because of >> f.e. the Apache community model. Other said that might be a waste of >> time. >> >> Log4J in my opinion is near to the attic, if there is no development >> activity. I would think this would be pretty said and I am willing to >> spend some time. But I cannot lead the development - there are others >> who were involved in tons of discussions in the past. >> >> Question: are some more interested developers subscribed to this list >> who are willing to work on Log4J 2.0 again? >> >> Cheers, >> Christian >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
