Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

On 2015-09-19, Nicholas Duane wrote: > I'm not sure how the log4j, log4j2 and log4net groups are related. The people developing log4j and the people developing log4net are separate teams - and have always been. The other log4XYZ-es (everything not log4j) have been inspired by log4j but they've

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nick, You ask and discuss on the dev list. The number of developers isn’t that large so it should be readily apparent if there is interest. That said, Log4j 1.x was pretty dormant when I started working on Log4j 2. I worked for almost 18 months before I committed anything just because I

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote: > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-) > Gary > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists. >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because >> there

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

To answer your last question, at the ASF the project committers decide what they are going to do. They make decisions by discussing their ideas on the mailing list. In some ways, the ASF is a “do-ocracy”. You can make all the recommendations you want, but ultimately it is up to whoever

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

See inline.. 2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane : > "So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge > that has been generated within log4j2." > > While that sounds like it could mean a port I guess it doesn't necessarily > mean it is a port. I

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I looked over the thread you included below. I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2. Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2. In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

is something like jni4net an interim solution? Use log4j2 as is, just expose the logging methods to .Net? All the guts would still be log4j2. Yes, a little icky and clunky (and possibly not even viable), but just throwing it out there *■ DOUGLAS E. WEGSCHEID* // Lead Analyst, Directories

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I'll take a look at the link. So if I'm interested in helping, if in fact the goal is to port log4j2 to .net, then how do I know whether anyone who would make that decision is even thinking about that, if they are thinking about it how do I know if they've decided to move forward, and when

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2. I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Maybe helpful:http://codecall.net/2014/03/27/best-tools-to-convert-java-to-c-source-code/ Gary Original message From: Nicholas Duane Date: 09/16/2015 17:58 (GMT-08:00) To: Log4J Users List Cc: Log4NET User

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some kind? Gary On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just > don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting point? Thanks, Nick Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Why

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the infrastructure underneath it all... Gary On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge. But I guess

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Well, it might be huge but I’m guessing it would be a lot of fun! Ralph > On Sep 16, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I wasn't > expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only