d the rest of the group:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Did you test the branch using log4j 1.x configs?
> > > > > > > 2. Given the release of https://github.com/qos-ch/reload4j,
> does
> > > it
> > > > > > re
s
> > it
> > > > > really
> > > > > > make sense to force breakage on users in a minor release? Would it
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > better to use reload4j in Kafka 3.2 and log4j 2 in Kafka 4.0?
> > &
t; > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:16 AM Edoardo Comar
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ismael and Luke,
> > > > > > we've tested Dongjin code - porting her preview releases and PR
> to
> > > > > > different Kafka code levels (2.8.
We're happy with it and would love it if her PR was merged in
> 3.2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > To chime in on the issue of compatibility, as we have experienced
> it,
> > > the
> > > > > main limitation of the log4j-1.2-api.jar 'bri
; > > > main limitation of the log4j-1.2-api.jar 'bridge' jar is in the
> > support for
> > > > custom Appenders, Filters and Layouts.
> > > > If you're using such components, they may need to be rewritten to the
> > > > Log4j2 spec and correspondingly use
and
> > >
> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html#Log4j1.2BridgeLimitations
> > >
> > > I think that the above information should find its way in the KIP's
> > > compatibility section.
> > >
> > > HTH
> > &g
/manual/migration.html#Log4j1.2BridgeLimitations
> >
> > I think that the above information should find its way in the KIP's
> > compatibility section.
> >
> > HTH
> > Edo
> > --
> > Edoardo Comar
>
l#Log4j1.2BridgeLimitations
> >
> > I think that the above information should find its way in the KIP's
> > compatibility section.
> >
> > HTH
> > Edo
> > --
> > Edoardo Comar
> > Event Streams f
> --
> Edoardo Comar
> Event Streams for IBM Cloud
>
>
> ____________________
> From: Luke Chen
> Sent: 18 March 2022 07:57
> To: dev
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] KIP-653: Upgrade log4j to log4j2
>
> Hi Dongjin,
&g
ompatibility section.
HTH
Edo
--
Edoardo Comar
Event Streams for IBM Cloud
From: Luke Chen
Sent: 18 March 2022 07:57
To: dev
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] KIP-653: Upgrade log4j to log4j2
Hi Dongjin,
I know there
Hi Dongjin,
I know there are some discussions about the compatibility issue.
Could you help answer this question?
Thank you.
Luke
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 3:32 AM Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The KIP compatibility section does not include enough detail. I am puzzled
> how we voted +1 given
Hi all,
The KIP compatibility section does not include enough detail. I am puzzled
how we voted +1 given that. I noticed that Colin indicated it would only be
acceptable in a major release unless the new version was fully compatible
(which it is not). Can we clarify what we actually voted for here
Hi All,
As of present:
- Binding: +3 (Gwen, John, Colin)
- Non-binding: +1 (David, Tom)
This KIP is now accepted. Thanks for your votes!
@Colin Sure, I have some plan for providing a compatibility preview. Let's
continue in the discussion thread.
All other voters not in KIP-676 Vote thread: KI
+1 (binding). I think we should consider doing this in 3.0 rather than 2.8,
though, unless we are really confident that it is 100% compatible.
I wasn't able to find much information on how compatible the new API bridge is,
but the log4j website does have this:
> Basic compatibility with Log4j
+1 non-binding.
Thanks for your efforts on this Dongjin.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:45 AM Dongjin Lee wrote:
> As of present:
>
> - Binding: +2 (Gwen, John)
> - Non-binding: +1 (David)
>
> Now we need one more binding +1.
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjin
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:37 AM David Jacot
As of present:
- Binding: +2 (Gwen, John)
- Non-binding: +1 (David)
Now we need one more binding +1.
Thanks,
Dongjin
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:37 AM David Jacot wrote:
> Thanks for driving this, Dongjin!
>
> The KIP looks good to me. I’m +1 (non-binding).
>
> Best,
> David
>
> Le mar. 6 oct. 2
Thanks for driving this, Dongjin!
The KIP looks good to me. I’m +1 (non-binding).
Best,
David
Le mar. 6 oct. 2020 à 17:23, Dongjin Lee a écrit :
> As of present:
>
> - Binding: +2 (Gwen, John)
> - Non-binding: 0
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjin
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 10:51 AM John Roesler wrote:
>
>
As of present:
- Binding: +2 (Gwen, John)
- Non-binding: 0
Thanks,
Dongjin
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 10:51 AM John Roesler wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP, Dongjin!
>
> I’ve just reviewed the KIP document, and it looks good to me.
>
> I’m +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020, at 19
Thanks for the KIP, Dongjin!
I’ve just reviewed the KIP document, and it looks good to me.
I’m +1 (binding)
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020, at 19:11, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> A very welcome update :)
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:09 AM Dongjin Lee wrote:
> >
> > Hi devs,
> >
+1 (binding)
A very welcome update :)
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:09 AM Dongjin Lee wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> Here I open the vote for KIP-653: Upgrade log4j to log4j2. It replaces the
> obsolete log4j logging library into the current standard, log4j2, with
> maintaining backward-compatibility.
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
