Thanks Ralph -- good to see Ceki's response to the same question, albeit
2 yrs earlier. Makes me think I should have voiced my justifications
for a 1.0 label years ago, as doubtless many people are likewise waiting
for 1.0 to try out logback, but get by with log4j and don't press the
issue. Will wait to hear me directly from Ceki on this. Thanks also
for pointing out the issues lists.
On this note, here's something I dug up from over 3 yrs ago, including
the "1.0 release" question: http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/08/logback.
Again this brings me back to my related question: /Are there some
must-have features that have yet to be implemented?/
Best,
Ari
Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you that the version number should be 1.0 or
greater. I asked the question 2 years ago.
See http://marc.info/?t=122124087900007&r=1&w=2
<http://marc.info/?t=122124087900007&r=1&w=2>. I imagine the answer is
still the same. The bottom line is that since the project is run by a
single individual you are going to have to take it or leave it on his
terms.
As for Log4j 1.2, Logback actually had some of the same problems. The
way syncronization is done logging can become a serious bottleneck or
cause a deadlock. The caller data in Log4j is sort of a hack. Since
Log4j supports pre Java 1.4 applications it can't directly use
StackTraceElements. In recent versions they are used by detecting the
JVM version at runtime and then using reflection to invoke the needed
APIs. Another way of assessing this is to
a) look at the Jira issues for Log4j 2.0 - essentially a wish list for
the next version
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=12310790&status=1
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=12310790&status=1>
b) look at all the open issues for Log4j 1.2
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=Log4j&content=
<https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=Log4j&content=>
Ralph
On Sep 5, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Ari Meyer wrote:
Thanks Greg. Ralph: again, it has nothing to do with anyone's
personal opinion as to what is "production ready". Literally
THOUSANDS of organizations have established policies in place that do
not permit the use of explicitly alpha/beta or pre-1.0 releases.
Anyone who has worked for a Fortune 500, defense contractor,
government/energy/military, etc. knows what I'm talking about. New
software components often have to be approved by a review board. I
can't tell you how much time I've spent pushing such organizations to
accept FOSS, but they typically draw the line at components that
aren't EXPLICITLY production releases (> 1.0 and not betas). And
(for at least larger components/app servers/etc.) they usually
require indemnification and SLAs. I do see that apparently Ceki
offers support: http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/professionalSupport.
That all said, I'm interested to hear what are the "severe problems"
with Log4j 1.2. If that is documented, that might be enough to
persuade some organizations to move to logback pre-1.0. I've seen
http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html, but I have to assume if
there were actually /severe/ problems with Log4j that people would
have been obliged to ditch it long ago. Countless FOSS, closed
source, and internally created projects still depend in some way or
another on Log4j.
Bottom line: if the current "production ready" logback release were
simply labeled "1.0", logback would then be considered an acceptable
alternative by thousands of groups that currently cannot do so due to
internal policies. You can say that's absurd, but that's the way
things work.
Ari
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Grzegorz Borkowski
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ralph, it's all true. But I haven't said Logback is not
production ready or so. I use it in production environment too.
The only question is: if it is stable and production ready, why
it has number suggesting something opposite? If the common sense
is that versions <1.0 are used for pre-final builds, then why
Logback uses such number? (You can release some library, give it
version number "0.0.0.012.pre-alpha" and say "this is final,
production ready version, the number is of no importance" - but
this would be really strange, right?)
So if version number should not be picked up by accident, then
we're just curious why this strange version 0.9.x number is used
in case of Logback.
Greg
W dniu 2010-09-05 16:52, Ralph Goers pisze:
I think you are using the wrong criteria. SLF4J and Logback are certainly
production ready. I have projects using them in production systems. The
version number is not a great way to determine that. IMO, what is more
important is the health of the community and availability of support. In some
ways this community is very healthy as there is a fair amount of activity on
the mailing lists. However, with only a single person with commit access you
do need to be aware that there is a serious supportability problem with SLF4J
and Logback. However, I am sure Ceki is willing to accept contracts to fix any
bugs you might encounter. You can also ask the rest of us for help, but the
best we can do is to fix the bug in a fork somewhere and try to get Ceki to
incorporate it.
Having said that, the situation with Log4j isn't a lot better at the
moment. Log4j 1.2 is ancient and has severe problems and Log4j 2.0 is still in
the stages of experimental code.
Ralph
On Sep 5, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Ari Meyer wrote:
Jeff,
I am not trying to argue with you. Please re-read what I wrote. I am
simpy saying that many organizations will not allow, except for very special
circumstances, software components that are in alpha/beta stages of development
(or appear to be so, as is the case with sub-1.0 releases) to be deployed to
their servers. If some mission-critical software has dependencies on pre-1.0
releases, that cannot be avoided. But I cannot justify to my management the
use of a pre-1.0 logback when log4j/SLF4J is still sufficient for most
purposes. This has nothing to do with marketing nor what I personally value.
And yes, of course I know who Ceki is and respect all that he has done, and I
have used (and made small contributions to) log4j and SLF4J since their early
releases.
Again, thanks to Ceki and all contributors,
Ari
Jeff Jensen wrote:
I may be right? Just look at the Logback home page and see a few projects
using it, e.g. SpringSource’s dm Server.
You place too much value in a marketing thing – a release number!
You are also confusing authors of work – I am a fan and user of SLF4J and Logback. All credit goes to Ceki and associates.
For stability concerns, you should review the Logback history with its genesis from Log4j. You do know Ceki, the Logback founder, is also the founder of Log4j?
‘nuff said…
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ari Meyer
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:26 PM
To: logback users list
Subject: Re: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
Hi Jeff,
You may be right about that (though I haven't seen it pulled down as a dependency for my Maven builds, yet...), but large organizations often don't see things the way you and I do. They won't ditch an acceptable, stable log4j for what *appears* to be a beta. After over 4 years of active development, though, it seems reasonable to expect multiple full releases of something as relatively small in scope as a logging framework. The fact that we don't see a 1.0 yet perhaps indicates over-perfectionism. This often happens with other OSS projects (JDOM being a notable case of this, as I remember). For our sake, please just get to a reasonably stable build and label it "1.0". We'll expect bug fixes and minor API changes, of course, as that's natural, and new features can be released incrementally.
Are there some must-have features that have yet to be implemented? It would be nice if the FAQ were updated for this, along with a high-level road map.
Thanks for all for the hard work!
Ari
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Jeff Jensen <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Just because the release number begins with a value < 1 doesn't mean it is
in beta. Lots and lots of products around the world use SLF4J and Logback
in production operations, and I bet including some of the FOS frameworks you
are using!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Ari Meyer
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:09 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
Hi,
We'd like to switch from log4j to logback, but can't use beta releases.
logback has been in development for over 4 years now -- any idea when
we'll see a 1.0 release?
Thanks,
Ari
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
