You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2017/07/04 21:00:10 UTC
[Log4j] release 2.9
Hi All,
I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big deadline
for me. Is that a possibility?
Gary
Re: [Log4j] Android support
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
A minimal log4j-android-core type of thing could be handy, though I feel
that would be easier to do with the log4j-core modularization I proposed a
while back. We wouldn't want to duplicate plugin code and things like that.
On 5 July 2017 at 15:57, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> It would also be good if log4j-jul works on Android.
>
> And log4j-jcl (given that commons-logging itself works).
>
> And log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j (given that SLF4J itself works).
>
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 22:19, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
>
>> I think it is enough with log4j-api support for Android in the 2.9
>> release, we can fix log4j-core (or provide an alternative) later.
>>
>> On 2017-07-05 22:05, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, we need to make sure that at least log4j-api works
>>> flawlessy on Android. I think this is already covered by
>>> LOG4J2-1926.
>>>
>>> But do we also aim for having log4j-core working on Android? It seems to
>>> me that it could be a lot of work (and possibly force us to remove some
>>> Android-incompatible features like JMX), and maybe not worth it.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to accept and document the fact that log4j-core
>>> does not support Android, and instead create an alternative implementation
>>> which works in Android (likely much smaller and simpler). Possibly with
>>> some Android specific stuff in it (like a LogCat Appender as requested in
>>> LOG4J2-951).
>>>
>>> We have some outstanding tickets about this (some very old):
>>> LOG4J2-461
>>> LOG4J2-728
>>> LOG4J2-951
>>> LOG4J2-1915
>>> LOG4J2-1921
>>>
>>> I tried to label all of them with "Android".
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-07-05 21:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> An important customer for us is Apache HttpClient for which I already
>>>> switched to Log4j2 in the 5.0 (alpha level) branch. I am on the PMC
>>>> there
>>>> as well. Any help to get Android cooking for Log4j modules would be g r
>>>> e a
>>>> t. I am on deadline at work until the end of the month so my time is
>>>> limited and focused on what I must have.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] Android support
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
It would also be good if log4j-jul works on Android.
And log4j-jcl (given that commons-logging itself works).
And log4j-slf4j-impl and log4j-to-slf4j (given that SLF4J itself works).
On 2017-07-05 22:19, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> I think it is enough with log4j-api support for Android in the 2.9
> release, we can fix log4j-core (or provide an alternative) later.
>
> On 2017-07-05 22:05, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
>> First of all, we need to make sure that at least log4j-api works
>> flawlessy on Android. I think this is already covered by
>> LOG4J2-1926.
>>
>> But do we also aim for having log4j-core working on Android? It seems
>> to me that it could be a lot of work (and possibly force us to remove
>> some Android-incompatible features like JMX), and maybe not worth it.
>>
>> Another option would be to accept and document the fact that
>> log4j-core does not support Android, and instead create an alternative
>> implementation which works in Android (likely much smaller and
>> simpler). Possibly with some Android specific stuff in it (like a
>> LogCat Appender as requested in LOG4J2-951).
>>
>> We have some outstanding tickets about this (some very old):
>> LOG4J2-461
>> LOG4J2-728
>> LOG4J2-951
>> LOG4J2-1915
>> LOG4J2-1921
>>
>> I tried to label all of them with "Android".
>>
>>
>> On 2017-07-05 21:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> An important customer for us is Apache HttpClient for which I already
>>> switched to Log4j2 in the 5.0 (alpha level) branch. I am on the PMC
>>> there
>>> as well. Any help to get Android cooking for Log4j modules would be g
>>> r e a
>>> t. I am on deadline at work until the end of the month so my time is
>>> limited and focused on what I must have.
>>
>
Re: [Log4j] Android support
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
I think it is enough with log4j-api support for Android in the 2.9
release, we can fix log4j-core (or provide an alternative) later.
On 2017-07-05 22:05, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> First of all, we need to make sure that at least log4j-api works
> flawlessy on Android. I think this is already covered by
> LOG4J2-1926.
>
> But do we also aim for having log4j-core working on Android? It seems to
> me that it could be a lot of work (and possibly force us to remove some
> Android-incompatible features like JMX), and maybe not worth it.
>
> Another option would be to accept and document the fact that log4j-core
> does not support Android, and instead create an alternative
> implementation which works in Android (likely much smaller and simpler).
> Possibly with some Android specific stuff in it (like a LogCat Appender
> as requested in LOG4J2-951).
>
> We have some outstanding tickets about this (some very old):
> LOG4J2-461
> LOG4J2-728
> LOG4J2-951
> LOG4J2-1915
> LOG4J2-1921
>
> I tried to label all of them with "Android".
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 21:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> An important customer for us is Apache HttpClient for which I already
>> switched to Log4j2 in the 5.0 (alpha level) branch. I am on the PMC there
>> as well. Any help to get Android cooking for Log4j modules would be g
>> r e a
>> t. I am on deadline at work until the end of the month so my time is
>> limited and focused on what I must have.
>
[Log4j] Android support
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@staldal.nu>.
First of all, we need to make sure that at least log4j-api works
flawlessy on Android. I think this is already covered by
LOG4J2-1926.
But do we also aim for having log4j-core working on Android? It seems to
me that it could be a lot of work (and possibly force us to remove some
Android-incompatible features like JMX), and maybe not worth it.
Another option would be to accept and document the fact that log4j-core
does not support Android, and instead create an alternative
implementation which works in Android (likely much smaller and simpler).
Possibly with some Android specific stuff in it (like a LogCat Appender
as requested in LOG4J2-951).
We have some outstanding tickets about this (some very old):
LOG4J2-461
LOG4J2-728
LOG4J2-951
LOG4J2-1915
LOG4J2-1921
I tried to label all of them with "Android".
On 2017-07-05 21:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
> An important customer for us is Apache HttpClient for which I already
> switched to Log4j2 in the 5.0 (alpha level) branch. I am on the PMC there
> as well. Any help to get Android cooking for Log4j modules would be g r e a
> t. I am on deadline at work until the end of the month so my time is
> limited and focused on what I must have.
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
An important customer for us is Apache HttpClient for which I already
switched to Log4j2 in the 5.0 (alpha level) branch. I am on the PMC there
as well. Any help to get Android cooking for Log4j modules would be g r e a
t. I am on deadline at work until the end of the month so my time is
limited and focused on what I must have.
Gary
On Jul 5, 2017 12:16, "Mikael Ståldal" <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice to
> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
>
> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to work as
> well?
>
> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to 2.10.
>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't have
>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates it
>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo since
>> I
>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
>> release of it.
>>
>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have
>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
>>>>
>>> deadline
>>>
>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
Done.
On 2017-07-05 21:15, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice
> to include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I won't be able to help out with that until next week at the earliest. I'm
preparing a presentation this weekend (coincidentally one about Scala
actually), but things are starting to simmer down finally.
On 7 July 2017 at 13:39, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> It would be good if you could finalize the release of logging-log4j-scala.
> I am ready to help.
>
>
> On 2017-07-07 01:04, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> The code as is should be ready for source and binary artifacts I believe.
>> I
>> don't recall if there was a distribution zip task already set up, though,
>> and I believe that's the minimal required artifacts for an Apache release.
>>
>> On 6 July 2017 at 17:19, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I attempted a release, and we fixed something, but I was still unsure as
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> how to build the website as the site:stage goal fails with missing file
>>>> errors if I recall correctly. Since then, I've been busy with a short
>>>>
>>> term
>>>
>>>> work project eating up all my energy, so I haven't had a chance to make
>>>> another rc, though without the site, it's not really a release now is
>>>> it?
>>>> :/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, strictly speaking, Apache delivers sources (see Subversion),
>>> binaries
>>> and site? Pft! A mere convenience! Just JOKING of course. Putting our
>>> jars
>>> in Maven Central is a must these days.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 6 July 2017 at 15:35, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we
>>>>>
>>>> do
>>>
>>>> that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be
>>>>>>
>>>>> what
>>>
>>>> we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
>>>>> implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically just release what we currently have in the
>>>>>>
>>>>> logging-log4j-scala
>>>>
>>>>> Git repo.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That
>>>>
>>>>> would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> keep
>>>>
>>>>> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> API.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
It would be good if you could finalize the release of
logging-log4j-scala. I am ready to help.
On 2017-07-07 01:04, Matt Sicker wrote:
> The code as is should be ready for source and binary artifacts I believe. I
> don't recall if there was a distribution zip task already set up, though,
> and I believe that's the minimal required artifacts for an Apache release.
>
> On 6 July 2017 at 17:19, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I attempted a release, and we fixed something, but I was still unsure as
>> to
>>> how to build the website as the site:stage goal fails with missing file
>>> errors if I recall correctly. Since then, I've been busy with a short
>> term
>>> work project eating up all my energy, so I haven't had a chance to make
>>> another rc, though without the site, it's not really a release now is it?
>>> :/
>>>
>>
>> Well, strictly speaking, Apache delivers sources (see Subversion), binaries
>> and site? Pft! A mere convenience! Just JOKING of course. Putting our jars
>> in Maven Central is a must these days.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>> On 6 July 2017 at 15:35, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we
>> do
>>>> that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be
>> what
>>>> we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
>>>> implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically just release what we currently have in the
>>> logging-log4j-scala
>>>> Git repo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name?
>>> That
>>>> would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
>>>>>> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I
>>> keep
>>>>>> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro
>>>> API.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
The code as is should be ready for source and binary artifacts I believe. I
don't recall if there was a distribution zip task already set up, though,
and I believe that's the minimal required artifacts for an Apache release.
On 6 July 2017 at 17:19, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I attempted a release, and we fixed something, but I was still unsure as
> to
> > how to build the website as the site:stage goal fails with missing file
> > errors if I recall correctly. Since then, I've been busy with a short
> term
> > work project eating up all my energy, so I haven't had a chance to make
> > another rc, though without the site, it's not really a release now is it?
> > :/
> >
>
> Well, strictly speaking, Apache delivers sources (see Subversion), binaries
> and site? Pft! A mere convenience! Just JOKING of course. Putting our jars
> in Maven Central is a must these days.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> > On 6 July 2017 at 15:35, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we
> do
> > > that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be
> what
> > > we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
> > > implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
> > > >
> > > > Basically just release what we currently have in the
> > logging-log4j-scala
> > > Git repo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> > > >> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name?
> > That
> > > would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> > > >> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I
> > keep
> > > >> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro
> > > API.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I attempted a release, and we fixed something, but I was still unsure as to
> how to build the website as the site:stage goal fails with missing file
> errors if I recall correctly. Since then, I've been busy with a short term
> work project eating up all my energy, so I haven't had a chance to make
> another rc, though without the site, it's not really a release now is it?
> :/
>
Well, strictly speaking, Apache delivers sources (see Subversion), binaries
and site? Pft! A mere convenience! Just JOKING of course. Putting our jars
in Maven Central is a must these days.
Gary
>
> On 6 July 2017 at 15:35, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we do
> > that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be what
> > we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
> > implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
> > >
> > > Basically just release what we currently have in the
> logging-log4j-scala
> > Git repo.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> > >> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name?
> That
> > would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> > >> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I
> keep
> > >> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro
> > API.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I attempted a release, and we fixed something, but I was still unsure as to
how to build the website as the site:stage goal fails with missing file
errors if I recall correctly. Since then, I've been busy with a short term
work project eating up all my energy, so I haven't had a chance to make
another rc, though without the site, it's not really a release now is it? :/
On 6 July 2017 at 15:35, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we do
> that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be what
> we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
> implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
> >
> > Basically just release what we currently have in the logging-log4j-scala
> Git repo.
> >
> >
> > On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That
> would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> >> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
> >> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro
> API.
> >
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Don’t we still need to get Scala integrated into the web site? Can we do that before the 2.9 release? Or has a Scala release not been done yet?
Ralph
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be what we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
>
> Basically just release what we currently have in the logging-log4j-scala Git repo.
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
>> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
>> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API.
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9 - Scala API
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
Yes, I think that the 11.0 release of the Scala API should only be what
we currently have in 2.8.2 plus Scala 2.12 support plus the already
implemented ThreadContext wrapper in LOG4J2-1690.
Basically just release what we currently have in the logging-log4j-scala
Git repo.
On 2017-07-05 23:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name?
> That would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API.
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
With all the compatibility issues with Android Java, it's no wonder Oracle
tried to sue them over it...
On 6 July 2017 at 04:51, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is another Java 9 headache WRT Android:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1921?
> focusedCommentId=16076259&page=com.atlassian.jira.
> plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16076259
>
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That
> > would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> > Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
> > seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API.
> >
> > On 5 July 2017 at 15:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > But this long package name is already out released for Scala 2.10 and
> > > 2.11. I suggest we release for 2.12 with the same package name, and
> then
> > > maybe change it in the next release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2017-07-05 22:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a
> released
> > >> solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is
> > too
> > >> long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS
> > package
> > >> naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the
> > root
> > >> package name there.
> > >>
> > >> On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be
> nice
> > to
> > >>> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming
> days.
> > >>>
> > >>> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android
> support). I
> > >>> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is
> it
> > >>> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to
> > work
> > >>> as
> > >>> well?
> > >>>
> > >>> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to
> > >>>> 2.10.
> > >>>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't
> > >>>> have
> > >>>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation
> > updates
> > >>>> it
> > >>>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo
> > >>>> since
> > >>>> I
> > >>>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new
> > major
> > >>>> release of it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ralph
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> deadline
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Here is another Java 9 headache WRT Android:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1921?focusedCommentId=16076259&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16076259
Gary
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That
> would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
> Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
> seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API.
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 15:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > But this long package name is already out released for Scala 2.10 and
> > 2.11. I suggest we release for 2.12 with the same package name, and then
> > maybe change it in the next release.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-07-05 22:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >
> >> I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a released
> >> solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is
> too
> >> long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS
> package
> >> naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the
> root
> >> package name there.
> >>
> >> On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice
> to
> >>> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
> >>>
> >>> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
> >>> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
> >>> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to
> work
> >>> as
> >>> well?
> >>>
> >>> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to
> >>>> 2.10.
> >>>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't
> >>>> have
> >>>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation
> updates
> >>>> it
> >>>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo
> >>>> since
> >>>> I
> >>>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new
> major
> >>>> release of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that
> >>>> have
> >>>>
> >>>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> deadline
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That
would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into
Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep
seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API.
On 5 July 2017 at 15:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> But this long package name is already out released for Scala 2.10 and
> 2.11. I suggest we release for 2.12 with the same package name, and then
> maybe change it in the next release.
>
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 22:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a released
>> solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is too
>> long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS package
>> naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the root
>> package name there.
>>
>> On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice to
>>> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
>>>
>>> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
>>> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
>>> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to work
>>> as
>>> well?
>>>
>>> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to
>>>> 2.10.
>>>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't
>>>> have
>>>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates
>>>> it
>>>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo
>>>> since
>>>> I
>>>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
>>>> release of it.
>>>>
>>>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
>>>>>>
>>>>>> deadline
>>>>>
>>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
But this long package name is already out released for Scala 2.10 and
2.11. I suggest we release for 2.12 with the same package name, and then
maybe change it in the next release.
On 2017-07-05 22:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a released
> solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is too
> long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS package
> naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the root
> package name there.
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice to
>> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
>>
>> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
>> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
>> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to work as
>> well?
>>
>> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to 2.10.
>>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't have
>>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates it
>>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo since
>>> I
>>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
>>> release of it.
>>>
>>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have
>>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
>>>>>
>>>> deadline
>>>>
>>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a released
solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is too
long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS package
naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the root
package name there.
On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice to
> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
>
> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to work as
> well?
>
> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
>
>
>
> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to 2.10.
>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't have
>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates it
>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo since
>> I
>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
>> release of it.
>>
>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have
>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
>>>>
>>> deadline
>>>
>>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be nice
to include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming days.
It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android support). I
guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is it
enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to work
as well?
Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out.
On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to 2.10.
> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't have
> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates it
> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo since I
> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
> release of it.
>
> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have
>> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
>> deadline
>>> for me. Is that a possibility?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to 2.10.
I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't have
time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation updates it
requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo since I
want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new major
release of it.
On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have
> been reported. Some seem pretty important.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big
> deadline
> > for me. Is that a possibility?
> >
> > Gary
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Log4j] release 2.9
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that have been reported. Some seem pretty important.
Ralph
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big deadline
> for me. Is that a possibility?
>
> Gary