Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Not really no... I was thinking to just go down the list of Apache projects and check one by one if they need Log4j 1.2. Maybe we need a Jira for this to keep track. Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/07/22, at 19:23, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > > Do we have a list of those

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Do we have a list of those Apache projects? On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > Shall we start contacting Apache project that still use Log4j 1 with this > new information and offer them our assistance in migrating to Log4j 2 in > order to get ready for

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I agree with Remko (and others) that we should not spend any more work on Log4j 1.x. Instead focus on make Log4j 2.x work properly on Java 9 and help with migrations from 1 -> 2. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > Breaking news: > Spring boot 1.4

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Breaking news: Spring boot 1.4 removed support for Log4j 1 following the EOL announcement: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/wiki/Spring-Boot-1.4.0-GA-Release-Notes-%28WIP%29 I think this is a very positive development and I hope many other projects will follow this example. On

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Ah ok, that's reasonable. On 17 July 2016 at 11:19, Remko Popma wrote: > I deliberately did not want to suggest technical obstacles are the reason > for not doing another 1.2 release. I thought that would muddy the waters... > > The main message I wanted to send out is >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I deliberately did not want to suggest technical obstacles are the reason for not doing another 1.2 release. I thought that would muddy the waters... The main message I wanted to send out is "Log4j 1.2 is End of Life. We have a successor that is much, much better and it is called Log4j 2. We can

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

You might want to point out that it doesn't even compile in Java 9, too, otherwise that thing about the MDC sounds like a "trivial" bug to fix. I'm sure there's more problems than just the version number due to modules (e.g., custom log4j 1 plugins would need to perform module hacks to make

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Blogged: https://blogs.apache.org/logging/entry/moving_on_to_log4j_2 Let me know if you want to change anything. Remko On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > +1 > > Ralph > > On Jul 16, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Remko Popma wrote: >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

+1 Ralph > On Jul 16, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2016/07/17, at 3:30, Matt Sicker > wrote: > >> That sounds like a great idea. >> >> On 16 July 2016 at 11:16, Gary Gregory

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/07/17, at 3:30, Matt Sicker wrote: > > That sounds like a great idea. > >> On 16 July 2016 at 11:16, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Jul 16, 2016 12:17 AM, "Remko Popma" wrote: >> > >> > Shall we start

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

That sounds like a great idea. On 16 July 2016 at 11:16, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Jul 16, 2016 12:17 AM, "Remko Popma" wrote: > > > > Shall we start contacting Apache project that still use Log4j 1 with > this new information and offer them our

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

On Jul 16, 2016 12:17 AM, "Remko Popma" wrote: > > Shall we start contacting Apache project that still use Log4j 1 with this new information and offer them our assistance in migrating to Log4j 2 in order to get ready for Java 9? I like it! Gary > > Remko > > Sent from my

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Shall we start contacting Apache project that still use Log4j 1 with this new information and offer them our assistance in migrating to Log4j 2 in order to get ready for Java 9? Remko Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/07/15, at 2:36, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > Where was the GitHub fork when it was EOL'd? Or when development > effectively stopped 4 years ago? > Maybe the hack provided in this thread will be enough for most folks. Gary > > On 14 July 2016 at 12:12, Gary Gregory

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Where was the GitHub fork when it was EOL'd? Or when development effectively stopped 4 years ago? On 14 July 2016 at 12:12, Gary Gregory wrote: > And get ready for a GitHub fork... > > Gary > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Remko Popma >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

And get ready for a GitHub fork... Gary On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > I agree. We announced that Log4j 1.2 is end of life. We have a replacement > that is better than Log4j 1.2 in pretty much every way. > > In my opinion we should > a) make sure

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I agree. We announced that Log4j 1.2 is end of life. We have a replacement that is better than Log4j 1.2 in pretty much every way. In my opinion we should a) make sure Log4j 2 is ready for Java 9 b) start announcing that Log4j 1.2 will not work with Java 9 so people can start planning their

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Looks like the NTEventLogAppender. On 14 July 2016 at 11:59, Ralph Goers wrote: > C DLL? What was that for? > > Ralph > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > There are 2 issues with build log4j 1 IIRC: Getting the Java part

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

That was exactly what my “mixed emotions” were about. Also, I think we are going to have a fair amount of work to really support Java 9. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Any Log4j 1 release is likely to open the floodgates of requests to

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Win NT eventlog appender I think. (Which is by the way also an old API and perhaps not even supported by Microsoft any more...) On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > C DLL? What was that for? > > Ralph > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Gary Gregory

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

C DLL? What was that for? Ralph > On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > There are 2 issues with build log4j 1 IIRC: Getting the Java part to build > and getting the C DLL to build. Both require old stuff laying around in just > the right places. > >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

That's actually a good point. If we went back and released 1.2.18 or something, then people would expect that we were maintaining it again. On 14 July 2016 at 11:44, Gary Gregory wrote: > Any Log4j 1 release is likely to open the floodgates of requests to fix > any

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Any Log4j 1 release is likely to open the floodgates of requests to fix any outstanding "simple" (or complex) bugs. Keep in mind that Java 9 is not official yet, so we could be opening ourselves to a series of Java 9 EA compatible releases as Java 9 with and without Jigsaw (these are still

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

There are 2 issues with build log4j 1 IIRC: Getting the Java part to build and getting the C DLL to build. Both require old stuff laying around in just the right places. Gary On Jul 14, 2016 9:02 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote: That would rule out building on a Mac. I’d

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Remko, good points. However, it's also possible a system has large layer of third-party dependencies which requires Log4J 1.2 deep down. Another option is to first voice your opinion to Oracle on the matter. They want to hear the good and the bad of decisions. They appreciate strong community

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I'm getting a new Thinkpad in the mail today, so if I can find a copy of JDK 1.4.2 that works in a modern Linux environment, that might work. On 14 July 2016 at 11:02, Ralph Goers wrote: > That would rule out building on a Mac. I’d have to try it from a Linux > VM.

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Strategically I don't see why doing another 1.2 release would be a good idea. If people can upgrade to Java 9 with all the regression testing that implies, then I see no reason they would not also upgrade to Log4j 2... Naturally Log4j 2 needs to be in good shape for Java 9 and we would support

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

That would rule out building on a Mac. I’d have to try it from a Linux VM. I think Gary might have built Log4j 1 in the past. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > Matt, I guess you need JDK 1.4.2 on your machine to have artifact >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Well that's a bit of a blocker for me. Oracle/Sun did not distribute 1.4.2 for Mac, and Apple's 1.4.2 won't install on my Mac because it doesn't think it needs to. I may need a Linux VM or Docker container for this. On 14 July 2016 at 10:52, Paul Benedict wrote: > Matt, I

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Matt, I guess you need JDK 1.4.2 on your machine to have artifact "sun.jdk:tools:jar:1.4.2". Cheers, Paul On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > How do you even build log4j 1.2? I get this error when I build from trunk: > > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

How do you even build log4j 1.2? I get this error when I build from trunk: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run (javadoc.resources) on project log4j: Execution javadoc.resources of goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run failed:

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I should also point out that I am aware that Log4j 2 has problems building against Java 9. We need to start tackling those ASAP. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > I am not sure how that “patch” integrates with Log4j but I get the idea of

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Why would we want to do that? We need to make sure that Log4j 2 works well with Java 9, but otherwise I think this is an excellent opportunity for users to upgrade to Log4j 2. Remko On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > According to this poster, it

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I am not sure how that “patch” integrates with Log4j but I get the idea of the problem. To be honest, I have very mixed feelings about creating a patch release for this. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:56 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > According to this poster, it appears

Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

According to this poster, it appears 1.x is not compatible with JDK 9: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008654.html I told them I would notify our development community. So here's the notification. :-) Given how widely used 1.x is still, what do you guys think of one