Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-29 Thread Gary Gregory
Lets please keep it "log4j" and not make it log4j2. And let's not party like its 1999 either and make it log4j24u ;) So log4j 2.0 is what I think is best. Gary On Saturday, April 28, 2012, Ralph Goers wrote: > I think a global change in the doc from log4j2 to log4j 2 would be fine. > I'm busy

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-28 Thread Ralph Goers
I think a global change in the doc from log4j2 to log4j 2 would be fine. I'm busy with my grand kids today and part of tomorrow so if you'd like to handle it that would be fine. Sent from my iPad On Apr 28, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ralph

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-28 Thread Christian Grobmeier
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > These are all very good points   If you would look > at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/index.html as one example page > and help figure out how to change it so that when we are at log4j 2.1.2 the > page doesn't feel awkward because it

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-28 Thread Ralph Goers
These are all very good points If you would look at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/index.html as one example page and help figure out how to change it so that when we are at log4j 2.1.2 the page doesn't feel awkward because it is talking about 2.0 then I'd be OK with this. I suppose

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-28 Thread Christian Grobmeier
Thanks Ralph for explaining the background on this. Actually I am for version 3. It confuses me to see at leats 3 numbers in the name. Imaging the following version number: log4j2 2.2.2-BETA2 gives me headache. My current fave for version numbers is http://semver.org/ As you already mentioned, fo

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-27 Thread Ralph Goers
I should also mention that there is more than 1 artifact. There currently is log4j12-api, log4j2-api, logj42-core, log4j2-jcl, slf4j-impl, logj42-flume-og and log4j2-flume-ng. Ralph On Apr 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Thanks for looking at this. > > The choices I considered wer

Re: [log4j2] Name and versions

2012-04-27 Thread Ralph Goers
Thanks for looking at this. The choices I considered were 1) org.apache.logging.log4j log4j2 1.x 2) org.apache.logging log4j2 1.x 3) org.apache.logging log4j 2.x I preferred 1 but am OK with 2. I didn't like 3 simply because the doc was talking about Log4j 2.0 and I quickly realized we wou