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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is a very good point! > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Mikael Ståldal >>> Senior software developer >>> >>> Magine TV >>> [email protected] >>> 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. >>
