I just mentioned the config as one piece where I think it would be very useful 
to have similar, if not exactly the same, configs across implementations.  I 
also realize that it might not be possible.


So are you saying that when you get to designing a logging framework you first 
have to know what language/runtime you're designing it for?  I would think not. 
 Hopefully most, if not all, can be designed OS/runtime agnostic and without 
having to design to a lowest common denominator.


Also not sure about the OOP thing.  As far as I can tell, OOP is just a 
convenience thing, syntactic sugar.  I believe you can do the same in a 
procedural language.


Thanks,

Nick

________________________________
From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET

Every programming language has its own idioms, and that even goes for all
the various JVM languages as demonstrated by the log4j-scala API. Unless
you mean more of an architectural thing with a similar config format, then
that might be more possible, but even that relies on a language being
mostly OOP or mostly procedural or mostly functional or some other exotic
thing.

On 18 October 2016 at 09:23, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:

> I agree.  I'm also one for not coding to the lowest common denominator.
> That's one reason we're not using a logging facade as I assume with a
> facade you get only the features that are common across the set of logging
> frameworks the facade supports.
>
>
> What I'm suggesting is to come up with a design and architecture which is
> language/runtime/OS agnostic.  While it's easy for me to say that I
> wouldn't be surprised if it's more difficult to achieve.  When it comes to
> implementation I would assume the features might manifest themselves in
> different ways across the different languages/runtimes/OS's.  For instance,
> .NET has extension methods and Java doesn't.  You might decide to implement
> some features in .NET using extension methods and in Java you'll have to
> pick a different way to implement.  Configuration might be another area
> where there are differences among the different runtimes and thus the
> implementation might be a bit different.  Maybe there's even a feature that
> one implementation has that others don't just because there is no way, or
> no easy enough way to implement.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:04 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET
>
> Maybe I am nitpicking, but Log4j is also (mostly) agnostic to what language
> you run on the JVM (Java, Scala, Groovy, Clojure, etc).
>
> I guess it would be nice to have similar logging framework for other
> runtimes (such as .Net). However, I would not like to constrain Log4j to
> only use features available on both JVM and .Net.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess platform is vague.  Maybe I should have said language agnostic.
> > It would be nice to have a single logging architecture/design run on
> C/C++,
> > .NET, Java, etc.  Or at least it seems like a nice feature to me.  I
> would
> > assume there are many enterprises out there that have applications
> running
> > on different OS's and languages.  If I'm trying to pick a logging
> framework
> > to use and I find a popular one which is capable and runs similarly
> across
> > the OS's and languages then that's a big plus in my mind.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:52 AM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET
> >
> > Just to make things clear, Log4j is a logging framework for the JVM
> > platform, and it is agnostic to the underlying OS. It it well tested on
> (at
> > least) both Linux and Windows.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Figured I would send this question out to the log4j side.  I have
> already
> > > had some email exchanges with the log4net mailing list regarding
> porting
> > > log4j2 to .NET.  My suggestion was that the apache logging framework
> be a
> > > single architecture design which is platform agnostic and then teams
> > which
> > > port to the different platforms.  It seems log4net was a port of log4j
> > and
> > > may be going off in its own direction from that initial port.  My
> > viewpoint
> > > is that's a bad idea as one of the benefits I saw was that log4net was
> > > similar to log4j2 and we're looking for logging frameworks for our
> > > enterprise.  We have applications on both Windows/.NET and Linux/Java
> so
> > > having a logging framework for Windows/.NET which is similar to a
> logging
> > > framework for Linux/Java was a big plus.
> > >
> > >
> > > While I have no doubt the effort to port log4j2 to .NET is
> considerable,
> > > it would be a port and thus I'm not spending time figuring out design
> and
> > > algorithms.  Would anyone want to venture a guess at what that effort
> > might
> > > be?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: MagineTV]
> >
> > *Mikael Ståldal*
> > Senior software developer
> >
> > *Magine TV*
> > mikael.stal...@magine.com
> > Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   
> > www.magine.com<<<http://www.magine.com<<>
> http://www.magine.com<>
> > http://www.magine.com>
> > [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png
> ]<
> > http://www.magine.com/>
> >
> > TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/>
> > www.magine.com<http://www.magine.com>
> > Watch the TV you love, on any device, anywhere in Germany and Sweden and
> > find out more about our global OTT B2B solutions. Get started today.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> [image: MagineTV]
>
> *Mikael Ståldal*
> Senior software developer
>
> *Magine TV*
> mikael.stal...@magine.com
> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   
> www.magine.com<<http://www.magine.com<>
> http://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.
>



--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to