is something like jni4net an interim solution? Use log4j2 as is, just expose the logging methods to .Net? All the guts would still be log4j2.
Yes, a little icky and clunky (and possibly not even viable), but just throwing it out there.... *■ DOUGLAS E. WEGSCHEID* // Lead Analyst, Directories (269) 923-5278 // [email protected] "A wrong note played hesitatingly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with conviction is interpretation." On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dominik Psenner <[email protected]> wrote: > Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter > that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning > curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j > and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the > support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to > start off log4net2. > > So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge > that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise. > > All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators, > therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we > would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing > generated code. > > The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes > time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into > responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a > lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome! > > Cheers > On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I looked over the thread you included below. I can't tell from that > > whether the suggestion was to port log4j2. Not sure if the comment about > > starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a > port > > of log4j2. > > > > In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same > > architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it > > would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big > gripe > > of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd. > > > > I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync > > with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the > > easiest and safest path to the goal. > > > > I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, > how > > does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions? > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)? > > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200 > > > > > > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > > > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-) > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[email protected]> > > 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? > > > > > > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1. > > > > > > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of > > > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some > > > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML > > > configuration). > > > > > > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev > > > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer > > > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join. > > > > > > [1] thread starting with > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > -- *NOTICE: Whirlpool Corporation e-mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain proprietary or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use or disclosure of the e-mail by you is unauthorized.*
