I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge. But I guess you're saying it would be a huge effort.
Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code. I was assuming you could do it in phases. Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty. Thanks, Nick > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -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 > > It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the > infrastructure underneath it all... > > Gary > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I > > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only > > consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting > > point? > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -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 > > > > Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some > > kind? > > Gary > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > <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 > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
