See inline.. 2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com>:
> "So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge > that has been generated within log4j2." > > While that sounds like it could mean a port I guess it doesn't necessarily > mean it is a port. I guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if > log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate. > What afterthought? Which fate? > I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is > platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms. > That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible from log4j2. > As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might > make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar. > Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer is: It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and "what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it is done" is among them). But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase your point, please? > > For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite > between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have > thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason, > but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2 > reversed it scale from log4j1. > This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost random samples: level, log4j, log4net ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648 DEBUG, 10000, 30000 INFO, 20000, 40000 WARN, 30000, 60000 ERROR, 40000, 70000 FATAL, 50000, 110000 OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648 I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as issue LOG4NET-476. Cheers > Thanks, > Nick > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200 > Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)? > From: dpsen...@gmail.com > To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org > CC: log4j-u...@logging.apache.org > > > 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" <nic...@msn.com> 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: bode...@apache.org > > To: log4j-u...@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org > > 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 <nic...@msn.com> > 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 > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e> > > > > Stefan > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org > > > > -- Dominik Psenner
