By the way, what's the state of async appenders in log4net? I ask because the guys pushing nlog over here say that one reason they like nlog is that is allows for async operation. I assumed log4net supports that also, however when I attempted to do some async stuff in log4net I did run into problems:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36344822/log4net-appenders-onclose-doesnt-seem-to-work Seems like log4net should not only expose a startup routine the app must call but also a shutdown routine, and indicate that it's essential it gets called. Then log4net could shutdown the appenders in the shutdown routine as opposed to relying on .NET's appdomain shutdown logic. Thanks, Nick ________________________________ From: Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 4:28 PM To: Log4NET User Subject: Re: Apache log4net Needs Help >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
