You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2019/07/30 23:48:46 UTC
Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be down to about 5%.
I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
Thoughts?
Ralph
Re: Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
Posted by Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for Java 8.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:01 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for Java 8.
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:49 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master
> > branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using
> Java
> > 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in
> > AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no
> > longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found
> > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <
> > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be
> > down to about 5%.
> >
> > I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization
> > work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the
> minimum
> > requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Ralph
>
Re: Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
+1 for Java 8.
Gary
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:49 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master
> branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java
> 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in
> AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no
> longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found
> https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <
> https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be
> down to about 5%.
>
> I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization
> work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum
> requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralph
Re: Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
Posted by Carter Kozak <ck...@ckozak.net>.
Sounds reasonable to me given public support for 7 ended over four years ago. It's probably worth a preemptive email to the users list so we don't surprise anyone.
-ck
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 19:56, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I’d be alright with that as well. 3.0 is a good place for modularization
> and API cleanup.
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 18:55, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No objections from me.
> > Remko
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:48, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master
> > branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java
> > 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in
> > AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no
> > longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found
> > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <
> > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be
> > down to about 5%.
> > >
> > > I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization
> > work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum
> > requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Ralph
> >
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I’d be alright with that as well. 3.0 is a good place for modularization
and API cleanup.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 18:55, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No objections from me.
> Remko
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:48, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master
> branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java
> 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in
> AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no
> longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found
> https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <
> https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be
> down to about 5%.
> >
> > I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization
> work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum
> requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Ralph
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Should Log4j 2 2.x drop support for Java 7?
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
No objections from me.
Remko
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:48, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 <https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be down to about 5%.
>
> I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralph