The Fast*Appenders don't depend on the disruptor. Sorry for the confusion.
I'll see what I can do this weekend regarding submitting a patch for the merge. Just fyi, some of the patches I submitted (LOG4J2-199, LOG4J2-203 and LOG4J2-207) modify files in the log4j-async module. I'm not sure how easy it is to apply those after the log4j-async module is gone. Sent from my iPhone On 2013/04/13, at 4:16, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Core has optional dependencies on Jackson (for JSON configuration), Jansi > (Windows color support), javax.mail (SMTP appender) and geronimo-jms (JMS > appender). These should be called out on the core page. All the others are > test dependencies. > > What is different? Maybe nothing. IMO, all the "critical" things a user > expects should be available without any dependencies. For example, I would > hate to have either the FileAppender or RollingFileAppender dependent on > anything (I'm not sure the Fast versions are). > > I'd be a lot happier if Maven had a way to say "this component is optional > but if you are using this feature I will include it". IOW, Log4j provides an > AsyncLogger feature and project y specifies that it requires that feature. > I've wanted a feature like that for years but have never had the time to > implement it, nor can it really be implemented without changing the schema > for the pom. > > Ralph > > > On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Scott Deboy wrote: > >> >> This link says there are no dependencies :) Something to fix there? >> >> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/dependencies.html >> >> Of course, the convergence link shows dependencies: >> >> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/dependency-convergence.html >> >> I can't tell which ones are required at runtime for a minimal configuration >> - anything? >> >> If the other dependencies listed are optional at runtime, but available in >> core, why would this one be different? >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> I'm not sure what you mean, but the guideline I use as to whether something >>> belongs in core is what dependencies it requires. The functionality it >>> provides is secondary to me. My preference is for the Log4j API & core to >>> have as few dependencies as possible. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Scott Deboy wrote: >>> >>>> I'd like to avoid what we had with log4j 1.x - the receivers/companions >>>> mess. Whether or something belongs in core or not is a fuzzy judgment >>>> call sometimes. If possible, I would like to see as much as possible >>>> included in a single 'release' (that includes 'receivers/companions' if >>>> they ever are rewritten for log4j2). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> It probably should be done anyway, but the various components would also >>>>> need to check for the presence of the disruptor and log a warning if it >>>>> isn't there (I believe we do this for Jansi and Jackson) as the disruptor >>>>> would have to be an optional dependency. In the async package it can be >>>>> non-optional so this is less important for anyone using Maven. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Because it has a dependency on the Disruptor, which Remko has said may >>>>>> not work on all JDKs >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not more log4j-async into the core? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
