Road Map for Log4J future releases

[Syed Ghaznavi <sg...@us.bphx.com>]

Hi all,

My question is regarding the feature list for the future Log4J releases,
specifically 1.3.

I couldn't find any information on the log4J website, indicating the use
(implementation) of SLF4J interfaces in Log4J.

 

Is SLF4J ever going to be part of Log4J ?, cause if I remember correctly,
there was a discussion about implementing those interfaces directly in
Log4J, so the user applications can code against the SLF4J loggers as
supposed to any native (concrete) implementation, like the case in
Commons-Logging. Since I couldn't   keep up with the final decision on that
issue, I would really appreciate any information regarding it.

 

With Regards

Syed S. Ghaznavi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The information contained in this message is proprietary of BluePhoenix,
protected from disclosure, and may be privileged. The information is
intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) of the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this communication in error, please permanently delete and destroy
the original and any copy or printout. 

Re: Road Map for Log4J future releases

[Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>]

On Jun 26, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Syed Ghaznavi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My question is regarding the feature list for the future Log4J  
> releases, specifically 1.3.
>
> I couldn’t find any information on the log4J website, indicating  
> the use (implementation) of SLF4J interfaces in Log4J.
>
>
> Is SLF4J ever going to be part of Log4J ?, cause if I remember  
> correctly, there was a discussion about implementing those  
> interfaces directly in Log4J, so the user applications can code  
> against the SLF4J loggers as supposed to any native (concrete)  
> implementation, like the case in Commons-Logging. Since I  
> couldn’t   keep up with the final decision on that issue, I would  
> really appreciate any information regarding it.

SLF4J should be, but isn't, mentioned on the roadmap (http:// 
logging.apache.org/log4j/docs/plan.html) for 1.3.

When it was UGLI, it might have been considered part of log4j.   
However as SLF4J, it could only be "implemented by" log4j, not part  
of log4j.  But I assume that is what you meant.

The current CVS HEAD can be build with or without a direct  
implementation of the SLF4J interfaces, see http://issues.apache.org/ 
bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34883).  However as with everything else new  
in the CVS HEAD, it is subject to review and voting as we push toward  
a 1.3. release.  I don't believe there has been an explicit vote  
involving SLF4J in the 1.3.x line (there was a vote involving the  
1.2.x line).  I think that the log4j committers desire to have log4j  
1.3 to be the best choice for an SLF4J-compatible logging framework,  
but exactly how that is to be accomplished is still an open question.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org