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 2020/08/22 17:14:16 UTC
Log4cxx version
In looking at the log4cxx changelog I can’t help notice that the first release was 17 years ago. After all these years one would expect that the version should have hit 1.0.0 at least 10-15 years ago. Isn’t it time to correct that?
Ralph
Re: Log4cxx version
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
That is for those involved in the C++ development to decide but I would wonder
a) Besides updating the compiler are there other architectural improvements that should be made.
b) How much will the code diverge - would it be possible to share the code that is in common somehow or would that just get very messy?
c) What percentage of users are using the older compiler vs the newer? In Log4j’s case we continued to support older versions of Java until we saw usage of the version of Java drop below 10% or so.
d) Will versions of log4cxx created with the older version be incompatible with newer versions or lack significant capabilities at some point?
Ralph
> On Aug 22, 2020, at 6:31 PM, Robert Middleton <os...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm working on changes for log4cxx at the moment that involve upgrades to
> use C++11 features; that would definitely require a major change in the
> versioning, although the API would be largely the same. Part of the
> question with that as well is what platforms and compilers are supported,
> as Thorsten uses a very old compiler. So would it make sense to have two
> branches for development, the "legacy" 0.XX version and a new 1.XX version
> that depends on (at least) C++11?
>
> -Robert Middleton
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 4:30 PM Stephen Webb <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would completely support that change.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 3:14 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In looking at the log4cxx changelog I can’t help notice that the first
>>> release was 17 years ago. After all these years one would expect that the
>>> version should have hit 1.0.0 at least 10-15 years ago. Isn’t it time to
>>> correct that?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>
Re: Log4cxx version
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Since there's no central repository of C++ libraries (or C, or several
other languages for that matter; Rust providing one is a nice change
of pace), it'll be fairly difficult to get real usage stats about what
minimum compiler versions and such are still in use out there. Now I
know it's not the "oldest" thing out there, but I typically defer to
whatever is in Debian Stable (and maybe even RHEL sometimes, but
they're super ancient) for an idea of what's a safe baseline. In this
case, I see https://packages.debian.org/buster/liblog4cxx10v5 which is
using a fairly old libstdc++6 (>= 5.2) whereas Buster seems to package
a much more recent version (8.x).
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 07:01, Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
>
> Guten Tag Robert Middleton,
> am Sonntag, 23. August 2020 um 03:31 schrieben Sie:
>
> > I'm working on changes for log4cxx at the moment that involve upgrades to
> > use C++11 features; that would definitely require a major change in the
> > versioning, although the API would be largely the same.
>
> OTOH, the work on smart pointers you did in the past changed the API
> as well. Those things are pretty easy with having a "0.x" from almost
> every point of view.
>
> So in my opinion, creating a versioning scheme to distinguish two
> different versions from each other is fine. Switching to 1.0 only
> because X time has past is not. I'm using other projects as well in
> production keeping 0.x versions and don't care too much.
>
> > Part of the question with that as well is what platforms and
> > compilers are supported, as Thorsten uses a very old compiler.
>
> In the worst case, I'm simply forking and using the old code base for
> my needs until I get the resources to upgrade my projects. Need to do
> that anyway at some point, just didn't have the resources yet.
>
> > So would it make sense to have two branches for development, the
> > "legacy" 0.XX version and a new 1.XX version that depends on (at
> > least) C++11?
>
> Seems pretty uncommon to me to actively develop/maintain a 0.x and a
> 1.x, doesn't it? So maybe prefer a 0.x -> 1.x -> 2.x and maintain 1.x
> and 2.x only? OTOH, 2.x might make people believe in compatibility
> with log4j2 too much?
>
> Let's explicitly ask on the list if any legacy version supporting old
> compilers is if interest at all?
>
> I might be the only one, in which case it's not worth taking care too
> much at all. I'm fine with what 0.x provides currently and am not sure
> if I would enhance that version at all if I needed to, in favour of
> upgrading to 1.x first and enhancing afterwards. Legacy always is a
> dead-end after all.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Thorsten Schöning
>
> --
> Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>
> Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
> Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>
> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Log4cxx version
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Robert Middleton,
am Sonntag, 23. August 2020 um 03:31 schrieben Sie:
> I'm working on changes for log4cxx at the moment that involve upgrades to
> use C++11 features; that would definitely require a major change in the
> versioning, although the API would be largely the same.
OTOH, the work on smart pointers you did in the past changed the API
as well. Those things are pretty easy with having a "0.x" from almost
every point of view.
So in my opinion, creating a versioning scheme to distinguish two
different versions from each other is fine. Switching to 1.0 only
because X time has past is not. I'm using other projects as well in
production keeping 0.x versions and don't care too much.
> Part of the question with that as well is what platforms and
> compilers are supported, as Thorsten uses a very old compiler.
In the worst case, I'm simply forking and using the old code base for
my needs until I get the resources to upgrade my projects. Need to do
that anyway at some point, just didn't have the resources yet.
> So would it make sense to have two branches for development, the
> "legacy" 0.XX version and a new 1.XX version that depends on (at
> least) C++11?
Seems pretty uncommon to me to actively develop/maintain a 0.x and a
1.x, doesn't it? So maybe prefer a 0.x -> 1.x -> 2.x and maintain 1.x
and 2.x only? OTOH, 2.x might make people believe in compatibility
with log4j2 too much?
Let's explicitly ask on the list if any legacy version supporting old
compilers is if interest at all?
I might be the only one, in which case it's not worth taking care too
much at all. I'm fine with what 0.x provides currently and am not sure
if I would enhance that version at all if I needed to, in favour of
upgrading to 1.x first and enhancing afterwards. Legacy always is a
dead-end after all.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
Re: Log4cxx version
Posted by Robert Middleton <os...@gmail.com>.
I'm working on changes for log4cxx at the moment that involve upgrades to
use C++11 features; that would definitely require a major change in the
versioning, although the API would be largely the same. Part of the
question with that as well is what platforms and compilers are supported,
as Thorsten uses a very old compiler. So would it make sense to have two
branches for development, the "legacy" 0.XX version and a new 1.XX version
that depends on (at least) C++11?
-Robert Middleton
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 4:30 PM Stephen Webb <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would completely support that change.
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 3:14 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In looking at the log4cxx changelog I can’t help notice that the first
> > release was 17 years ago. After all these years one would expect that the
> > version should have hit 1.0.0 at least 10-15 years ago. Isn’t it time to
> > correct that?
> >
> > Ralph
> >
>
Re: Log4cxx version
Posted by Stephen Webb <sw...@gmail.com>.
I would completely support that change.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 3:14 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> In looking at the log4cxx changelog I can’t help notice that the first
> release was 17 years ago. After all these years one would expect that the
> version should have hit 1.0.0 at least 10-15 years ago. Isn’t it time to
> correct that?
>
> Ralph
>