On 2016-10-04, Nicholas Duane wrote:
>> 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?
Right. This is open source ;-)
> I would have thought, and hoped, that the apache foundation, would be
> making the strategic decision on product direction.
No, this would be a misconception. "The Apache Software Foundation"
provides infrastructure and the legal framework for its projects, any
other decision is delegated to "the project". And "the project" is, in
the end, the group of developers working on it.
Many of the active people at the ASF I know - including myself -
wouldn't be here if there were other people who told them what to work
on. Most of us are volunteers spending their spare time.
> 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.
This is a discussion to have on the gene...@logging.apache.org.
The groups of people working on log4net and log4j are more or less
disjunct. It took a long time to carve out log4j 2.x (and pain, if my
remote observations are correct) and log4net hasn't been following it at
all - most likely because we haven't had enough people with enough time
looking after log4net back then as well.
I understand your point, but one consequence would likely be that log4j
was slowed down by log4net if we were striving for feature
parity. Slowed down severly.
Cheers
Stefan
