>Whether a log4j2 port happens or not really is decided by the people who
>are willing and able to invest the time needed. The same is true for any
>other decision we take. There is no "business plan" for log4net, those
>who do the work decide about what gets done.
Wow. So the developers are going to decide the feature in the product? I
would have thought, and hoped, that the apache foundation, would be making the
strategic decision on product direction.
As I mentioned, it's my opinion that there should be a single logging
architecture/design which is ported to both linux/java and windows/.net.
Anything else doesn't make sense, at least to me.
Thanks,
Nick
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Log4NET User
Subject: Re: Apache log4net Needs Help
On 2016-10-04, Nicholas Duane wrote:
> While I realize resources are needed to make any changes to the code base,
> even if resources are/become available it's yet another (big?) decision on
> whether the changes that are made to log4net are ones which will take it off
> into its own direction or whether a new version of log4net is created which
> is a port of lo4j2.
Absolutely. That's why I qualified it with "who want to do the porting
work" :-)
Whether a log4j2 port happens or not really is decided by the people who
are willing and able to invest the time needed. The same is true for any
other decision we take. There is no "business plan" for log4net, those
who do the work decide about what gets done.
I hear you and I understand why a log4net closer to log4j2 might be
attractive but I am completely unable to devote the time needed for
something that would more or less amount in a rewrite.
Cheers
Stefan
