On May 26, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On May 26, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> I just checked out >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/trunk >> >> Is this the right place for v2.0.? > > That is indeed where it is. Where were you thinking it should be? > > It's quite fine there :) In the long run I'd like to see 1.x move to a branch > and 2.0 move to trunk. > > Now, I am new here so please accept this with a grain of salt from my > ignorance of local history ;) > > I'd like to see Log4j2 become log4j 2.0 as opposed to log4j2 1.0. I do > realize that because of the API breakage (assuming there is API breakage), we > need a new package but I find the current name... not inspiring .... > o.a.logging.log4j? Do we really expect to have >1 Java logging framework? If > so, it's fine and a nice name, but I would see it abbreviated to just 'log'. > Otherwise, the alternative is to do what we've been doing in Commons-land: > foo -> foo2. So you'd have a package and artifact id of log4j2. The alt alt > is to leave it as is.
That subject came up a few weeks ago and it was pretty much agreed upon that it would be log4j 2.0. I thought I took care of everything already to do that. Log4j 1.x used a package name of org.apache.log4j. Log4j 2 uses org.apache.logging.log4j in a similar fashion to commons projects. I'm not sure how changing that to "log" helps anything. I feel like I'm missing something. Ralph
