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>
