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
