Perhaps I am being overly cautious but: 1. Log4j 2 is still in beta. It took Ceki 5 1/2 years from Logback's first release until version 1.0. Granted, that was probably 2 or 3 years longer than needed but we've only had 3 releases over 2 months. 2. To date, I'm the only one who has committed code. There are going to be times when I am overloaded at work and may not respond to things for a few days. I really, really want more people committing here. 3. Log4j 1.x isn't going anywhere. We can give it the same love and care it has gotten for the last 4 years for a little while longer. But let's face it, it has been in maintenance mode for a long time now. No one should expect anything new.
Ralph On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Yes, 1.2.x is hard to build. I would not spend time refactoring the build to > produce different jars. For me, the fewer jars, the better. > > I would say to folks: 1.2 is in maintenance mode based on the desire of > volunteers. 2.0 is actively developed, use that. > > Gary > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hello, > > I think it is time to discuss the future of log4j 1.x seriously. > > Honestly I was surprised how quick log4j 2 appeared. Under the > assumption it takes longer I patched 1.x a little bit and we have > started to refactor 1.x into some smaller jars (I would say it is > progressed to around 80% - some minor glitches and a first release > remaining). > > But with the increasing interest of people on log4j2 I was wondering > if we should really put any more effort into log4j1. It is hard to > build for most (thus the refactoring) and compared to log4j2 its > really not so good. We are a small team and we could make log4j2 a > great success if we would bundle our powers and stop releasing 1.x > series. > > On the other hand, not everybody can switch to 2.x in a second. > > So what to do? the usual process is to tell people a "end of life" of > 1.x series and do some bugfixes. I am not sure if that makes much > sense, as the release cycles were pretty slow in the past and some > bugs are more hard to fix than the bring benefit (now as we have > lo4j2). > > I would have most fun to stop maintaining log4j1 and step aboard to > log4j2. But of course, we have users. > > What do others think on that matter? > > Cheers > Christian > > PS: I put Ivan on CC as he always has good ideas, but I am not sure if > he is subscribed to log4j-dev > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
