I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't
know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be interested in
"patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2. I
would like the two to be very similar, down to the level values, configuration
syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-u...@logging.apache.org
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because there
is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant
changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become more of a "port"
of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
--
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
