The new stop(long,TimeUnit) method on the LifeCycle interface (super interface 
for Appender, Configuration, Filter and a few more) concerns me. We should 
introduce a LifeCycle2 extends LifeCycle interface for that method. 

There may be a few more items. Full list is at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1576. Not all of these are 
necessarily problematic. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On 2016/09/17, at 0:55, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> That is a very good point!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas <greg.d.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>> 
>> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to 
>> 2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way for 
>> 3.x
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>>> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have 
>>> to in order to support Java 9.
>>> 
>>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x 
>>> releases after that.
>>> 
>>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Ah, yes, Java 9... it just seems that we need to more clearly define what 
>>>> is public vs. not and an SPI package seems like nice neat way to do that. 
>>>> That said, it's a lot of busy work and I am not 100% it is worth it. I am 
>>>> waffling.
>>>> 
>>>> Gary
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ralph Goers 
>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am nowhere near wanting to do 3.0. But we may want to do it for Java 9 
>>>>> depending on how disruptive that is.  That is one of the reasons I would 
>>>>> like to get moving on Java 9 asap.  I have a feeling we may want to 
>>>>> continue the 2.x releases while 3.x is going just for that reason.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should we start thinking about 3.0 where the main driver is to formalize 
>>>>>> a Core SPI package?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Doing this for 2.8 and break BC in Core would be too disruptive.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Doing this for 2.8 and have a Core class implement a SPI interface where 
>>>>>> the SPI interface inherits the old interface would be weird.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or, should we just keep on going as we have and keep Core BC a moving 
>>>>>> target?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We could wait to do more 2.x releases and accumulate more deprecated 
>>>>>> code (Builders vs factory methods for example).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>> Senior software developer 
>>> 
>>> Magine TV
>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com    
>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>>> 
>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this 
>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not 
>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply 
>>> email.   
>> 

Reply via email to