I would throw out there that the syslog appender is also a very useful appender
for mixed shops.
A couple things though. I don't see any need to break any appenders that work
fine. I'm not sure what the current appender skeleton interface lacks that we'd
want to make breaking changes for. I would approve of dropping high
complexity, low reward appenders like outdated .NET remoting.
I'm very pro-async/ await but I'm not sure that I'd want or need to await
logging. Every log4net deployment I've ever done has used a non-blocking
appender to queue logs. I would never introduce waiting for whatever appenders
are configured as a blocking operation before my code continued. We currently
have a ConcurrentQueueAppender that we use to buffer all logging out of the
active thread.
Requiring .NET 4.5 is fine, if it serves a purpose. However, I am of the
opinion that .NET 2.0 or .NET 4.0 easily encompasses the actual usage needed
for log4net. We should use the lowest version that works so as to have the
broadest support. Many enterprise shops can't just jump to .NET 4.5.1 or 4.6.
We don't need any more user exodus.
I'm all for an unused/complex/poor appender clean up, and dropping support for
.NET 1.1, but at the point where you're going back to console and file
appenders only, and .NET 4.5, you might as well start a new project.
One of the points raised is very valid. We need build automation. There's VSO
Build, MyGet Build Services, AppVeyor among other things. I'm willing to wager
one of them would support the project with a free build setup. Artifacts of
official build versions get published to nuget.
We also need to take ownership of nuget packaging log4net. This current "that's
not us, that's up to the package maintainer" comes off as silly in a world
where every commonly used library is consumed via nuget. The strong naming key
change fiasco and the lack of official nuget packaging and the nuget package
having differing version numbers have all damaged the credibility of the
project and promoted the idea that .NET's open source community doesn't amount
to much. If we aren't going to take the steps to make log4net appealing to
use, we may as well attic the project.
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:44 AM, Justin Dearing <zippy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to lend a hand. Some ideas:
>
> * Just be bold and embrace .NET 4.5, CoreCLR and the current version of Mono
> (must build on Centos7 with the official mono yum repo). Anyone with an XP
> requirement will either stick to the old log4net for now, or we've already
> lost them to NLog or whatever. Let's make a great modern piece of software,
> and not worry about abandoning legacy users that have plenty of options.
>
> * Why .NET 4.5? async/await mainly.
>
> * Forget supporting the current appenders. Its not hard to write an {obscure
> RDBMS appender} from scratch, and someone from that community is always
> willing to do that.
>
> * Console and text file should be all that we need to ship, but anything that
> will run on a stock windows OS (or with official MSFT updates like newer SQL
> drivers) should be considered for 1.0 release if someone will write them.
>
> * What we do need with the appender interface is install/uninstall hooks.
> There should be a pipeline for appending install and uninstall Func<>()s so
> the users can hook into them. This way a program can have an "install
> appender target" or "uninstall appender target" mode. This is important for
> databases (creating the table), or an eventlog appender where you need to
> install an event source as admin but your program runs unprivileged.
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:48 AM Ílson Bolzan <ilbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agree.
>>
>> Will the code be compatible with the current version?
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Miroslav Vanický
>>> <miroslav.vani...@vande.cz> wrote:
>>> Logging to MSSQL would be nice!
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19.8.2015 12:56, Javier Sanchez wrote:
>>>> Agree!
>>>>
>>>> El ago. 19, 2015 3:21 AM, <dpsen...@apache.org> escribió:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last night I’ve dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process of
>>>>> log4net happened on a flick of a switch. Now that I’m awake again I find
>>>>> the idea most pleasing and thus I’m bringing this idea to the dev list
>>>>> [1].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My idea was that we should start off log4net2 “from scratch” that targets
>>>>> only .NET 4.0 [2] and does only what the largest part
>>>>> of people want from it:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Log to console
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Log to file [3]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What can also be discussed is if log4net2 should get an interface to the
>>>>> existing appenders.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please discuss!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dominik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping hands
>>>>> and therefore this message goes to people that use log4net and want
>>>>> log4net to be revived.
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] With .NET 4.0 we would still support good old WinXP and that should
>>>>> really be enough for today’s technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] Yes, with rolling and there shouldn’t be a thousand possible
>>>>> combinations of configuration options. Stability and speed goes over
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
