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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant
changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become more of a "port"
of 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo