I’ve gotten completely lost in this conversation.

The design certainly doesn’t need to know about the language, but certain 
design features have to be implementable.

For example, to use the same configuration each implementation would have to 
support the plugin concept. The Java implementation relies upon annotations to 
do this. .NET has something similar but other languages may not.  Asynchronous 
Loggers take advantage of a highly optimized concurrent queue.  Although you 
might be able to create something equivalent in other languages it might not 
scale as well.  Then again, some languages don’t support multi-threading so 
either might require all loggers to be synchronous.

Ralph

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> 
> I guess I don't agree.  And just to be clear, I'm not talking about trying to 
> have a huge percentage, or any at all really, of single source and then glue 
> code around it for the various runtimes/OS's you're targeting.
> 
> 
> I'm not that familiar with log4j2 but I would assume you have:
> 
> 
> * a core engine with accepts events and then runs them through some checks 
> before throwing them out or sending them along their way.
> 
> 
> * seems the major abstraction is the appender.
> 
> 
> * some other abstractions like filters and layouts.
> 
> 
> * configuration
> 
> 
> * an object model such that most, if not all, can be configured 
> programmatically
> 
> 
> I'm sure there's some stuff I'm missing.  Still not sure why most of the 
> design for this has to know what runtime/language it's targeting.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nick
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:22 PM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET
> 
> Really, the only portable-ish way to make a common framework would be to
> write them in C or Rust or something and make glue code for every runtime
> out there. JVM users tend to prefer Java-native libraries over
> JNI/JNA/whatever type libraries, and I'm sure that's not uncommon in some
> other runtimes.
> 
> On 18 October 2016 at 10:11, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion, one of the major benefits of Log4j is its comprehensive
>> ecosystem of plugins (appenders, layouts, etc), both bundled and 3rd party.
>> This will automatically benefit all users of Log4j, regardless of language
>> (on the JVM) and OS (that you can run the JVM on). But this does not extend
>> to other runtimes (e.g. .Net).
>> 
>> Another benefit is that your application and 3rd party frameworks/libraries
>> you use can log via the same framework and you can collect the logs
>> together. This does not extend to other runtimes either, since you won't
>> use the same libraries.
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm saying the architecture of the code depends on the language you're
>>> using. Different design patterns apply to different languages, for
>>> instance. A logging framework in Java and C# might be very similar, but
>>> they'd look quite different from one written entirely in Clojure or F#.
>> The
>>> general concept of appenders, loggers, filters, etc., would all probably
>>> apply, but the APIs would probably differ a lot. This would affect plugin
>>> authors more than users of the library, but the only common things I
>> could
>>> see happening between different languages might be a similar API in a
>>> Logger class or module.
>>> 
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 09:45, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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>
> [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png]<http://www.magine.com/>
>  
> <https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png]%3Chttp://www.magine.com/%3E>
> 
> TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/ <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.
> 
> 
>> <<<
>>>> http://www.magine.com<<> <http://www.magine.com<<>>
>>>>> http://www.magine.com<> <http://www.magine.com<>>
>>>>>> http://www.magine.com <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>>>>> [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/ 
>>>>>> <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<>
>>>>> 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>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> [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/>>
>> 
>> 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