You might want to point out that it doesn't even compile in Java 9, too, otherwise that thing about the MDC sounds like a "trivial" bug to fix. I'm sure there's more problems than just the version number due to modules (e.g., custom log4j 1 plugins would need to perform module hacks to make themselves visible).
On 17 July 2016 at 10:37, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > Blogged: > > https://blogs.apache.org/logging/entry/moving_on_to_log4j_2 > > Let me know if you want to change anything. > Remko > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jul 16, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2016/07/17, at 3:30, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That sounds like a great idea. >> >> On 16 July 2016 at 11:16, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 16, 2016 12:17 AM, "Remko Popma" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Shall we start contacting Apache project that still use Log4j 1 with >>> this new information and offer them our assistance in migrating to Log4j 2 >>> in order to get ready for Java 9? >>> >>> I like it! >>> >> If nobody objects I will write a small post on blogs.apache.org about >> this, and then start to contact individual Apache projects. >> >> Remko >> >> Gary >>> >>> > >>> > Remko >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone >>> > >>> > On 2016/07/15, at 2:36, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Where was the GitHub fork when it was EOL'd? Or when development >>> effectively stopped 4 years ago? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Maybe the hack provided in this thread will be enough for most folks. >>> >> >>> >> Gary >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14 July 2016 at 12:12, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> And get ready for a GitHub fork... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Gary >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Remko Popma < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I agree. We announced that Log4j 1.2 is end of life. We have a >>> replacement that is better than Log4j 1.2 in pretty much every way. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> In my opinion we should >>> >>>>> a) make sure Log4j 2 is ready for Java 9 >>> >>>>> b) start announcing that Log4j 1.2 will not work with Java 9 so >>> people can start planning their migration >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Ralph Goers < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> That was exactly what my “mixed emotions” were about. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Also, I think we are going to have a fair amount of work to >>> really support Java 9. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Ralph >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Gary Gregory < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Any Log4j 1 release is likely to open the floodgates of requests >>> to fix any outstanding "simple" (or complex) bugs. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Keep in mind that Java 9 is not official yet, so we could be >>> opening ourselves to a series of Java 9 EA compatible releases as Java 9 >>> with and without Jigsaw (these are still separate builds IIRC) gets >>> developed. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Tracking Java 9 EAs with Log4j 2 is likely to be enough work as >>> it is... if we do want to do that now... >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Gary >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Remko Popma < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Strategically I don't see why doing another 1.2 release would >>> be a good idea. >>> >>>>>>>> If people can upgrade to Java 9 with all the regression testing >>> that implies, then I see no reason they would not also upgrade to Log4j 2... >>> >>>>>>>> Naturally Log4j 2 needs to be in good shape for Java 9 and we >>> would support users who did customizations to Log4j 1.2. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Ralph Goers < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> That would rule out building on a Mac. I’d have to try it >>> from a Linux VM. I think Gary might have built Log4j 1 in the past. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Ralph >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Paul Benedict < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Matt, I guess you need JDK 1.4.2 on your machine to have >>> artifact "sun.jdk:tools:jar:1.4.2". >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>> >>>>>>>>>> Paul >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matt Sicker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you even build log4j 1.2? I get this error when I >>> build from trunk: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal >>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run (javadoc.resources) on >>> project log4j: Execution javadoc.resources of goal >>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run failed: Plugin >>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2 or one of its dependencies >>> could not be resolved: Could not find artifact sun.jdk:tools:jar:1.4.2 at >>> specified path >>> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_66.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/../Classes/classes.jar >>> -> [Help 1] >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 14 July 2016 at 10:47, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would we want to do that? We need to make sure that >>> Log4j 2 works well with Java 9, but otherwise I think this is an excellent >>> opportunity for users to upgrade to Log4j 2. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Remko >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Paul Benedict < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> According to this poster, it appears 1.x is not compatible >>> with JDK 9: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008654.html >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I told them I would notify our development community. So >>> here's the notification. :-) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given how widely used 1.x is still, what do you guys think >>> of one more 1.x release? Usually I would never entertain the suggestion, >>> but this may be the one time the justification makes sense. For those who >>> still use 1.x and have no time to upgrade to 2.x, I can't think of a better >>> way to support the user community than fix this issue. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: Inside the post is a link to the supposed patch. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> >>>>>>> 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 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
