I'm not aware of all the differences, though I am the one that started this
thread. From what I've been told, log4net was a port of log4j 1.0. I assume
log4j 1.0 continued on and changed and log4net lagged behind. log4j 2.0, I'm
also told, is significantly different from log4j 1.0 and thus significantly
different from log4net.
My suggestion was to "port" log4j 2.0 to .NET. I have emphasized port so that
what I'm suggesting wouldn't be confused with trying to make changes to the
existing log4net to make it more similar to log4j2. I see benefit in having
one logging framework work on both the major platforms.
In my mind it would seem to make sense to have one logging architecture/design
and have that ported to both java and .NET, as well as any other major
languages/frameworks.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:52:25 +0800
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: piers.willi...@gmail.com
To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
Could someone please explain to some of the lurkers on these lists (like
myself) what the differences we are talking about actually are?
In the .net world the accusations against log4net have largely been around the
length of time to support new framework features properly (clr 2 lightweight
locking models, and now probably lamda logging statements and structured
logging). Would be interested to see what would be *gained* in a v2 port effort.
On 17 Sep 2015 5:42 am, "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? Any chance log4net might become more of a "port"
of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
