You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4net-user@logging.apache.org by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> on 2015/09/16 23:42:01 UTC
Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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 values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>
> Spring Batch in Action
>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Anthony Francisco <an...@recombulator.net>.
The old db4o project used a automated tool as part of their build to
translate their Java code into C#. I can't look up the tool right now, but
I think it was called Sharpen.
-Ants
On September 16, 2015 8:58:28 PM Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> 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 you're saying it would be a huge effort.
>
> Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what
> other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g.
> platform specific code.
>
> I was assuming you could do it in phases. Maybe the code is somewhat
> layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>>
>> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
>> > 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> > 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
>> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> >
>> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> >
>> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>> >
>> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> >
>> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> >
>> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> >
>> > Spring Batch in Action
>> >
>> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> >
>> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> >
>> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> > Spring Batch in Action
>> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Anthony Francisco <an...@recombulator.net>.
The old db4o project used a tool
On September 16, 2015 8:58:28 PM Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> 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 you're saying it would be a huge effort.
>
> Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what
> other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g.
> platform specific code.
>
> I was assuming you could do it in phases. Maybe the code is somewhat
> layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>>
>> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
>> > 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> > 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
>> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> >
>> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>> >
>> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>> >
>> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> >
>> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> >
>> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> >
>> > Spring Batch in Action
>> >
>> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> >
>> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> >
>> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> > Spring Batch in Action
>> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 you're saying it would be a huge effort.
Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.
I was assuming you could do it in phases. Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.
Thanks,
Nick
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
> > 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> >
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 you're saying it would be a huge effort.
Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.
I was assuming you could do it in phases. Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.
Thanks,
Nick
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
> > 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> >
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
> 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>
> Spring Batch in Action
>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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
> 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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>
> Spring Batch in Action
>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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 values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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 values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> Gary
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
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 <ni...@msn.com> 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 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
> values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> Gary
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
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 wasn’t really sure about anything. After I had something to talk about I committed it to an experimental branch where others could start contributing their ideas. I think that has worked out pretty well.
Since you don’t currently have commit rights you might either start something on github or it may be possible to create a new git repo for log4net 2 and give you access to that. That would be a bit unusual but not unheard of.
Ralph
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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 that decision takes place? Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 implements it.
> Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote: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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
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 wasn’t really sure about anything. After I had something to talk about I committed it to an experimental branch where others could start contributing their ideas. I think that has worked out pretty well.
Since you don’t currently have commit rights you might either start something on github or it may be possible to create a new git repo for log4net 2 and give you access to that. That would be a bit unusual but not unheard of.
Ralph
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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 that decision takes place? Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> 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 implements it.
> Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote: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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 that decision takes place? Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?
Thanks,
Nick
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
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 implements it.
Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
Ralph
On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote: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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
Thanks,
Nick
From: bodewig@apache.org
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
significant changes in the 2.0 version?
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).
Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 that decision takes place? Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?
Thanks,
Nick
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
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 implements it.
Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
Ralph
On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote: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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
Thanks,
Nick
From: bodewig@apache.org
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
significant changes in the 2.0 version?
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).
Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
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 implements it.
Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html>.
Ralph
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> From: bodewig@apache.org
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>>
>> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>>
>>> Gary
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>>>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>>
>> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
>> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
>> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
>> configuration).
>>
>> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
>> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
>> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>>
>> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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 never been started by
the log4j folks because they wanted to reach beyond the Java platform.
> I'm not sure if it works this way, but I see that the apache logging
> framework can be an architecture/design or specification which can be
> realized on different platform/languages.
This is not how things happened historically.
It might even be a bad idea if such an approach forced you to base the
architecture on the least common denominator of your target platforms -
I'm not sure.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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 never been started by
the log4j folks because they wanted to reach beyond the Java platform.
> I'm not sure if it works this way, but I see that the apache logging
> framework can be an architecture/design or specification which can be
> realized on different platform/languages.
This is not how things happened historically.
It might even be a bad idea if such an approach forced you to base the
architecture on the least common denominator of your target platforms -
I'm not sure.
Stefan
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
By afterthought I mean that log4net appears to be a second class
citizen, compared to log4j. It appears it was a snapshot, eg one time
port, after which it hasn't got much attention.
The fate it's
suffering is people moving away from it, or maybe not even adopting it
to begin with because of the lack of investment, in terms of features
and fixes. I've seen several posts along these lines. It appears some
have adopted nlog just because of the lack of activity on log4net.
Yeah,
that one sentence is a bit confusing. What I meant was that log4net,
being a second class citizen, would maybe get features that were added
to log4j if there were resources available. Maybe not. And maybe the
features would be a port or instead implemented somewhat differently.
This last part may not be true. As I mentioned, I see big differences
between log4net and log4j2 so maybe that's because log4j and log4j2 are
very different and maybe log4net was similar to log4j.
In terms
of the levels, either the scales are reversed, or they have been
reversed between log4j and log4j2. OFF in log4j2 is 0, ALL is
int.maxvalue. OFF in log4net is 0x7fffffff (int.maxvalue) and ALL is
0x80000000 (int.minvalue). This means that more specific in log4j2 is
< or <= and less specific is > or >=. It's the opposite in
log4net.
Don't get me wrong, I see no problem in log4net being a
second class citizen. If the target platform for your architecture and
design is linux/java and the majority of the resources you have a java
resources, then that makes perfect sense. However, the result (in terms of log4net), of
course, will be what has happened.
I'm not sure how the log4j,
log4j2 and log4net groups are related. I'm not sure if it works this
way, but I see that the apache logging framework can be an
architecture/design or specification which can be realized on different
platform/languages. So you might have one group working on the
architecture/design and several other groups providing the different
implementations.
Thanks,
Nick
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:00:05 +0200
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org; log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> See inline..
>
> 2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>:
>
> > "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 guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if
> > log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.
> >
>
> What afterthought? Which fate?
>
>
> > I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is
> > platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.
> >
>
> That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible
> from log4j2.
>
>
> > As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might
> > make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
> >
>
> Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap
> my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer
> is:
>
> It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and
> "what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus
> hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help
> is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to
> decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it
> is done" is among them).
>
> But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase
> your point, please?
>
>
> >
> > For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite
> > between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have
> > thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason,
> > but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2
> > reversed it scale from log4j1.
> >
>
> This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is
> different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost
> random samples:
>
> level, log4j, log4net
> ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
> DEBUG, 10000, 30000
> INFO, 20000, 40000
> WARN, 30000, 60000
> ERROR, 40000, 70000
> FATAL, 50000, 110000
> OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648
>
> I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across
> all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as
> issue LOG4NET-476.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
> > Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> > To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > CC: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
> > 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 support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire
> > to start off log4net2.
> >
> > So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> > that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
> >
> > All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code
> > generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In
> > the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and
> > bugfixing generated code.
> >
> > The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> > time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> > responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> > lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
> >
> > Cheers
> > On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> > would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> > of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
> >
> > I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> > with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> > easiest and safest path to the goal.
> >
> > I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> > does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> > >
> > > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> > >
> > > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> > >
> > > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > > configuration).
> > >
> > > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> > >
> > > [1] thread starting with
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e>
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dominik Psenner
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
By afterthought I mean that log4net appears to be a second class
citizen, compared to log4j. It appears it was a snapshot, eg one time
port, after which it hasn't got much attention.
The fate it's
suffering is people moving away from it, or maybe not even adopting it
to begin with because of the lack of investment, in terms of features
and fixes. I've seen several posts along these lines. It appears some
have adopted nlog just because of the lack of activity on log4net.
Yeah,
that one sentence is a bit confusing. What I meant was that log4net,
being a second class citizen, would maybe get features that were added
to log4j if there were resources available. Maybe not. And maybe the
features would be a port or instead implemented somewhat differently.
This last part may not be true. As I mentioned, I see big differences
between log4net and log4j2 so maybe that's because log4j and log4j2 are
very different and maybe log4net was similar to log4j.
In terms
of the levels, either the scales are reversed, or they have been
reversed between log4j and log4j2. OFF in log4j2 is 0, ALL is
int.maxvalue. OFF in log4net is 0x7fffffff (int.maxvalue) and ALL is
0x80000000 (int.minvalue). This means that more specific in log4j2 is
< or <= and less specific is > or >=. It's the opposite in
log4net.
Don't get me wrong, I see no problem in log4net being a
second class citizen. If the target platform for your architecture and
design is linux/java and the majority of the resources you have a java
resources, then that makes perfect sense. However, the result (in terms of log4net), of
course, will be what has happened.
I'm not sure how the log4j,
log4j2 and log4net groups are related. I'm not sure if it works this
way, but I see that the apache logging framework can be an
architecture/design or specification which can be realized on different
platform/languages. So you might have one group working on the
architecture/design and several other groups providing the different
implementations.
Thanks,
Nick
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:00:05 +0200
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org; log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> See inline..
>
> 2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>:
>
> > "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 guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if
> > log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.
> >
>
> What afterthought? Which fate?
>
>
> > I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is
> > platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.
> >
>
> That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible
> from log4j2.
>
>
> > As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might
> > make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
> >
>
> Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap
> my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer
> is:
>
> It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and
> "what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus
> hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help
> is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to
> decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it
> is done" is among them).
>
> But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase
> your point, please?
>
>
> >
> > For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite
> > between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have
> > thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason,
> > but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2
> > reversed it scale from log4j1.
> >
>
> This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is
> different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost
> random samples:
>
> level, log4j, log4net
> ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
> DEBUG, 10000, 30000
> INFO, 20000, 40000
> WARN, 30000, 60000
> ERROR, 40000, 70000
> FATAL, 50000, 110000
> OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648
>
> I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across
> all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as
> issue LOG4NET-476.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
> > Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> > To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > CC: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
> > 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 support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire
> > to start off log4net2.
> >
> > So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> > that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
> >
> > All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code
> > generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In
> > the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and
> > bugfixing generated code.
> >
> > The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> > time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> > responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> > lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
> >
> > Cheers
> > On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> > would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> > of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
> >
> > I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> > with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> > easiest and safest path to the goal.
> >
> > I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> > does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> > >
> > > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> > >
> > > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> > >
> > > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > > configuration).
> > >
> > > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> > >
> > > [1] thread starting with
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e>
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dominik Psenner
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
See inline..
2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>:
> "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 guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if
> log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.
>
What afterthought? Which fate?
> I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is
> platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.
>
That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible
from log4j2.
> As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might
> make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
>
Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap
my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer
is:
It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and
"what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus
hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help
is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to
decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it
is done" is among them).
But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase
your point, please?
>
> For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite
> between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have
> thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason,
> but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2
> reversed it scale from log4j1.
>
This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is
different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost
random samples:
level, log4j, log4net
ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
DEBUG, 10000, 30000
INFO, 20000, 40000
WARN, 30000, 60000
ERROR, 40000, 70000
FATAL, 50000, 110000
OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648
I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across
all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as
issue LOG4NET-476.
Cheers
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
> Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
> 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 support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire
> to start off log4net2.
>
> So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
>
> All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code
> generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In
> the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and
> bugfixing generated code.
>
> The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
>
> Cheers
> On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> >
> > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > > Gary
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> >
> > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > configuration).
> >
> > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> >
> > [1] thread starting with
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e>
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
>
--
Dominik Psenner
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
See inline..
2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>:
> "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 guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if
> log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.
>
What afterthought? Which fate?
> I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is
> platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.
>
That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible
from log4j2.
> As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might
> make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
>
Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap
my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer
is:
It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and
"what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus
hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help
is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to
decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it
is done" is among them).
But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase
your point, please?
>
> For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite
> between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have
> thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason,
> but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2
> reversed it scale from log4j1.
>
This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is
different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost
random samples:
level, log4j, log4net
ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
DEBUG, 10000, 30000
INFO, 20000, 40000
WARN, 30000, 60000
ERROR, 40000, 70000
FATAL, 50000, 110000
OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648
I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across
all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as
issue LOG4NET-476.
Cheers
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
> Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: dpsenner@gmail.com
> To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
> 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 support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire
> to start off log4net2.
>
> So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
>
> All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code
> generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In
> the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and
> bugfixing generated code.
>
> The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
>
> Cheers
> On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> >
> > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > > Gary
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> >
> > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > configuration).
> >
> > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> >
> > [1] thread starting with
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e>
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
>
--
Dominik Psenner
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
"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 guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate. I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms. As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason, but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2 reversed it scale from log4j1.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: dpsenner@gmail.com
To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
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 support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to start off log4net2.
So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing generated code.
The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
Cheers
On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
Thanks,
Nick
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Douglas Wegscheid <do...@whirlpool.com>.
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
(269) 923-5278 // Douglas_E_Wegscheid@whirlpool.com
"A wrong note played hesitatingly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with
conviction is interpretation."
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
> support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to
> start off log4net2.
>
> So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
>
> All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators,
> therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we
> would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing
> generated code.
>
> The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
>
> Cheers
> On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> > would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big
> gripe
> > of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
> >
> > I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> > with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> > easiest and safest path to the goal.
> >
> > I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious,
> how
> > does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> > >
> > > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> > >
> > > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> > >
> > > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > > configuration).
> > >
> > > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> > >
> > > [1] thread starting with
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > >
> >
>
--
*NOTICE: Whirlpool Corporation e-mail is for the designated recipient only
and may contain proprietary or otherwise confidential information. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete the original. Any other use or disclosure of the e-mail by you
is unauthorized.*
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
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
support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to
start off log4net2.
So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators,
therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we
would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing
generated code.
The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
Cheers
On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> 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
> architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> >
> > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > > Gary
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> >
> > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > configuration).
> >
> > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> >
> > [1] thread starting with
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
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 implements it.
Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html>.
Ralph
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> From: bodewig@apache.org
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>>
>> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>>
>>> Gary
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>>>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>>
>> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
>> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
>> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
>> configuration).
>>
>> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
>> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
>> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>>
>> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
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
support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to
start off log4net2.
So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators,
therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we
would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing
generated code.
The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
Cheers
On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> 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
> architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> >
> > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > > Gary
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> >
> > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > configuration).
> >
> > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> >
> > [1] thread starting with
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
Thanks,
Nick
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
Thanks,
Nick
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> Gary
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).
Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> Gary
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).
Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
Stefan
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
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 values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: garydgregory@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
I think Piers wanted to know what differences between log4j and log4net
caused you to start this thread.
Cheers
On 2015-10-06 19:39, Nicholas Duane wrote:
> I'm not aware of all the differences, though I am the one that started
> this thread. From what I've been told, log4net was a port of log4j
> 1.0. I assume log4j 1.0 continued on and changed and log4net lagged
> behind. log4j 2.0, I'm also told, is significantly different from
> log4j 1.0 and thus significantly different from log4net.
>
> My suggestion was to "port" log4j 2.0 to .NET. I have emphasized port
> so that what I'm suggesting wouldn't be confused with trying to make
> changes to the existing log4net to make it more similar to log4j2. I
> see benefit in having one logging framework work on both the major
> platforms.
>
> In my mind it would seem to make sense to have one logging
> architecture/design and have that ported to both java and .NET, as
> well as any other major languages/frameworks.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:52:25 +0800
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: piers.williams@gmail.com
> To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> Could someone please explain to some of the lurkers on these lists
> (like myself) what the differences we are talking about actually are?
>
> In the .net world the accusations against log4net have largely been
> around the length of time to support new framework features properly
> (clr 2 lightweight locking models, and now probably lamda logging
> statements and structured logging). Would be interested to see what
> would be *gained* in a v2 port effort.
>
> On 17 Sep 2015 5:42 am, "Nicholas Duane" <nickdu@msn.com
> <ma...@msn.com>> 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 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) and thus be more
> similar?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
I'm not aware of all the differences, though I am the one that started this thread. From what I've been told, log4net was a port of log4j 1.0. I assume log4j 1.0 continued on and changed and log4net lagged behind. log4j 2.0, I'm also told, is significantly different from log4j 1.0 and thus significantly different from log4net.
My suggestion was to "port" log4j 2.0 to .NET. I have emphasized port so that what I'm suggesting wouldn't be confused with trying to make changes to the existing log4net to make it more similar to log4j2. I see benefit in having one logging framework work on both the major platforms.
In my mind it would seem to make sense to have one logging architecture/design and have that ported to both java and .NET, as well as any other major languages/frameworks.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:52:25 +0800
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: piers.williams@gmail.com
To: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
Could someone please explain to some of the lurkers on these lists (like myself) what the differences we are talking about actually are?
In the .net world the accusations against log4net have largely been around the length of time to support new framework features properly (clr 2 lightweight locking models, and now probably lamda logging statements and structured logging). Would be interested to see what would be *gained* in a v2 port effort.
On 17 Sep 2015 5:42 am, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
Thanks,
Nick
Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Posted by Piers Williams <pi...@gmail.com>.
Could someone please explain to some of the lurkers on these lists (like
myself) what the differences we are talking about actually are?
In the .net world the accusations against log4net have largely been around
the length of time to support new framework features properly (clr 2
lightweight locking models, and now probably lamda logging statements and
structured logging). Would be interested to see what would be *gained* in a
v2 port effort.
On 17 Sep 2015 5:42 am, "Nicholas Duane" <ni...@msn.com> 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 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) and thus be more similar?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>