Gary,

Do you have something in mind?  While not hard, it is a fair amount of work for 
an application to switch to a different logging API. Granted, it is mostly just 
changing the call to get a Logger. But most applications should also take 
advantage of the new parameter syntax as well.

What was your experience with projects upgrading to commons lang3 vs commons 
lang?  I know quite a few people are still using commons httpclient vs the new 
version, and that has been around a lot longer than Log4j 2.  What I really 
hope is that we stopped projects from switching from log4j 1 to logback, 
although I am aware that many projects are using slf4j instead and letting 
their customers choose.  Frankly, if I hadn’t found limitations (such as the 
ability to use Messages) in SLF4J I would have used that as the API for Log4j 2 
(I am quite happy we didn’t).

Ralph

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Something to think about after we get 2.4 out the door...
> 
> Do you think it appropriate for us to do some kind of outreach to other 
> Apache projects and say "hey, about about use log4j 2?"
> 
> Gary
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com> | 
> ggreg...@apache.org  <mailto:ggreg...@apache.org>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/> 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/ <http://garygregory.com/>
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>

Reply via email to