You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com> on 2018/05/01 16:12:59 UTC
Re: NuGet package ID prefix reservation
Thanks for sharing this idea! I'm a great fan of this. Please do not
misunderstand my late response, lately spare time has become really rare,
sorry. Further I hope that in the near future, we may decide to split up
log4net into multiple packages. This trend can be observed about
everywhere, also log4j2, which is where log4net originally came from. To
make this plan more concrete, let me note that I envision something like:
log4net
log4net.Appenders.File
log4net.Appenders.Console
log4net.Appenders.AdoNet
log4net.Appenders.MQTT
[...]
This allows to keep only very few dependencies of the log4net core library,
allowing to become the core library as portable and backwards compatible as
possible. Such a structure further indicates a usecase for multiple places
for an .Extensions prefix open to third party contributors:
log4net.Extensions (this could be a place for generic interfaces to
frameworks like asp.net core, more log event filters, ..)
log4net.Appenders.Extensions (this could be a place for more appenders,
i.e. the previously mentioned MQTT, ..)
Is this something that the community would like to see happen?
I'm however unsure where there would arise trademark issues. Package names
are more like namespaces. So long the extensions do not claim to be part of
the ASF, it should be fine. Even on the contrary. Clearly defined rules and
conventions create room for transparency on what comes from where.
Please note further that if we decide to reserve all prefixes, we will need
to find a solution for all the existing packages that match the pattern
log4net* and this involves a bit of communication with the package
maintainers. For instance, all existing extensions to log4net would have to
be renamed. A hypothetical log4net.foobar extension would have to be
renamed to log4net.Extensions.foobar or log4net.Appenders.foobar if the
extension was only about an appender that supports foobar. This could also
be a great opportunity to attract the developers of the extensions to
become more involved with the community behind log4net here at apache. I
feel that this is something that the .net part of the apache logging family
really needs.
On 29 Apr 2018 8:32 p.m., "Matt Sicker" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
It certainly sounds like a good idea. As for sub prefixes, that's an
interesting question because there would be Apache trademark issues there
potentially, though I'm not entirely sure about that and would need to
investigate further.
On 28 April 2018 at 00:27, Sean Rose <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that NuGet has package ID prefix reservation (
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/reference/id-prefix-reservation)
> are there plans to reserve the log4net.* prefix?
>
> If so, will a particular sub prefix be left available for community
> created packages?
>
> For example:
> - log4net.Community.* (like AutoFixture, https://github.com/
> AutoFixture/AutoFixture/issues/863)
> - log4net.Contrib.* (like SpecFlow, http://specflow.org/2017/
> nuget-packages-reserved-id-naming-conventions/)
> - log4net.Ext.* (like some existing packages, https://www.nuget.org/
> packages?q=log4net.Ext)
> - log4net.Extensions.* (like some existing packages,
> https://www.nuget.org/packages?q=log4net.Extensions)
>
> Thanks,
> Sean Rose
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: NuGet package ID prefix reservation
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Based on the marketing guidelines a certain company is now using for a
different Apache project, I think the simplest way to avoid issues would be
to include a trademark disclaimer on pages including the name log4net as
well as making sure to call it "Apache log4net" in titles and such. A
disclaimer noting that third party plugins are not officially endorsed by
or managed by Apache or something like that.
On 1 May 2018 at 11:12, Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this idea! I'm a great fan of this. Please do not
> misunderstand my late response, lately spare time has become really rare,
> sorry. Further I hope that in the near future, we may decide to split up
> log4net into multiple packages. This trend can be observed about
> everywhere, also log4j2, which is where log4net originally came from. To
> make this plan more concrete, let me note that I envision something like:
>
> log4net
> log4net.Appenders.File
> log4net.Appenders.Console
> log4net.Appenders.AdoNet
> log4net.Appenders.MQTT
> [...]
>
> This allows to keep only very few dependencies of the log4net core library,
> allowing to become the core library as portable and backwards compatible as
> possible. Such a structure further indicates a usecase for multiple places
> for an .Extensions prefix open to third party contributors:
>
> log4net.Extensions (this could be a place for generic interfaces to
> frameworks like asp.net core, more log event filters, ..)
> log4net.Appenders.Extensions (this could be a place for more appenders,
> i.e. the previously mentioned MQTT, ..)
>
> Is this something that the community would like to see happen?
>
> I'm however unsure where there would arise trademark issues. Package names
> are more like namespaces. So long the extensions do not claim to be part of
> the ASF, it should be fine. Even on the contrary. Clearly defined rules and
> conventions create room for transparency on what comes from where.
>
> Please note further that if we decide to reserve all prefixes, we will need
> to find a solution for all the existing packages that match the pattern
> log4net* and this involves a bit of communication with the package
> maintainers. For instance, all existing extensions to log4net would have to
> be renamed. A hypothetical log4net.foobar extension would have to be
> renamed to log4net.Extensions.foobar or log4net.Appenders.foobar if the
> extension was only about an appender that supports foobar. This could also
> be a great opportunity to attract the developers of the extensions to
> become more involved with the community behind log4net here at apache. I
> feel that this is something that the .net part of the apache logging family
> really needs.
>
> On 29 Apr 2018 8:32 p.m., "Matt Sicker" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It certainly sounds like a good idea. As for sub prefixes, that's an
> interesting question because there would be Apache trademark issues there
> potentially, though I'm not entirely sure about that and would need to
> investigate further.
>
>
> On 28 April 2018 at 00:27, Sean Rose <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now that NuGet has package ID prefix reservation (
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/reference/id-prefix-reservation)
> > are there plans to reserve the log4net.* prefix?
> >
> > If so, will a particular sub prefix be left available for community
> > created packages?
> >
> > For example:
> > - log4net.Community.* (like AutoFixture, https://github.com/
> > AutoFixture/AutoFixture/issues/863)
> > - log4net.Contrib.* (like SpecFlow, http://specflow.org/2017/
> > nuget-packages-reserved-id-naming-conventions/)
> > - log4net.Ext.* (like some existing packages,
> https://www.nuget.org/
> > packages?q=log4net.Ext)
> > - log4net.Extensions.* (like some existing packages,
> > https://www.nuget.org/packages?q=log4net.Extensions)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sean Rose
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>