Log4j2?

[Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>]

Hi folks,

I'm totally aware that this is a delicate matter and friendships have
been destroyed over this question. But anyway: Shall we switch to Log4j2
as our primary log library?

GD&R
Bye, Thomas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org

Re: Log4j2?

[Jeffery Painter <je...@jivecast.com>]

Thomas, I am supportive of whatever you and Georg decide is best. I have
no particular preference as long as it is easy to use. :-)


-
Jeffery


> Hi folks,
>
> I'm totally aware that this is a delicate matter and friendships have
> been destroyed over this question. But anyway: Shall we switch to Log4j2
> as our primary log library?
>
> GD&R
> Bye, Thomas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org
>
>






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org

Re: Log4j2?

[Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>]

Hi folks,

On 01.03.19 08:50, Georg Kallidis wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas, I agree. 
> 
> The last battlefield would be commons, avalon almost done (both in Turbine 
> and Fulcrum) and slf4j already removed (for the latter log4j2 provides all 
> integrations: l->s, s->l).

Ok, I went through the code and removed all references to
commons-logging. Also tried to use the log4j2 features where possible.

I'm a bit opinionated with the Fulcrum components. These are Avalon
components and Avalon provides its own log system. To be consistent, I'd
prefer to keep it that way. Years ago, I spent quite some time to pull
this straight in the first place (fulcrum-intake and fulcrum-security,
maybe some more). I would not expect to find log entries from Avalon
services outside the "avalon" tree.

> But should we change all implementations (removing commons.logging) or use 
> the Commons Logging Bridge or both? ;-)

Please review what I committed.

Bye, Thomas



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org

Re: Log4j2?

[Georg Kallidis <ge...@cedis.fu-berlin.de>]

Hi Thomas,

only laziness kept me from doing/addressing this properly. 

Thanks, Thomas, I agree. 

The last battlefield would be commons, avalon almost done (both in Turbine 
and Fulcrum) and slf4j already removed (for the latter log4j2 provides all 
integrations: l->s, s->l).

But should we change all implementations (removing commons.logging) or use 
the Commons Logging Bridge or both? ;-)

Best regards,

Georg



Von:    Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>
An:     Turbine Developers List <de...@turbine.apache.org>
Datum:  28.02.2019 20:20
Betreff:        Log4j2?



Hi folks,

I'm totally aware that this is a delicate matter and friendships have
been destroyed over this question. But anyway: Shall we switch to Log4j2
as our primary log library?

GD&R
Bye, Thomas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@turbine.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@turbine.apache.org