You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> on 2019/08/29 19:38:14 UTC
[Java] GitHub usage stats seem interesting
At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it
had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is
for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats:
* log4j-api about 51k:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D
* log4j-core about 69k:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D
Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats:
* log4j 1.x about 298k (!):
https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D
* commons-logging about 95k:
https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D
* slf4j-api about 319k (!!):
https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D
* logback-core about 61k:
https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D
* logback-classic about 148k:
https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D
It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all
think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the
zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that
these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though
that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various
Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or
even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and
suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)?
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Java] GitHub usage stats seem interesting
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
We have some code for making migrations simpler. I wonder if perhaps
we can make a system that maps log4j 1 plugin classes and attributes
into their equivalent 2.x plugins. Not necessarily as classes but as
some sort of config file that can be extended to form compatibility
mappings. Then we should be able to easily read a v1 config file and
still use v2 plugins.
Alternatively, we could try to add metadata to the v2/v3 plugins that
indicate what their old v1 equivalent would've been where applicable.
I have some ideas around plugin metadata that I'd like to explore that
I hope to try working on this weekend. I had an unrelated idea on how
to show a GUI for configuring various appenders/layouts/etc. in a
Jenkins plugin, and if I had access to a standard plugin metadata API,
I'd be able to potentially generate all sorts of configuration UIs
automatically. This should hopefully be useful for mapping different
configuration formats to the same internal model or object graph.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 15:43, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At work we have one main hurdle to update one our projects from Log4j 1 to
> 2: How do we migrate installed applications from Log4j1 configurations to
> Log4j2.
>
> I started to work on this a long time ago but only got the basics working
> which is in Log4j2 now: The idea is to read a Log4j1 config file as is and
> map it to Log4j2. If you do not use a Log4j1 (or Log4j1 "extras")
> appenders, all bets are off obviously.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:38 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it
> > had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is
> > for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats:
> >
> > * log4j-api about 51k:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D
> > * log4j-core about 69k:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D
> >
> > Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats:
> >
> > * log4j 1.x about 298k (!):
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D
> > * commons-logging about 95k:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D
> > * slf4j-api about 319k (!!):
> >
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D
> > * logback-core about 61k:
> >
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D
> > * logback-classic about 148k:
> >
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D
> >
> > It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all
> > think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the
> > zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that
> > these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though
> > that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various
> > Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or
> > even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and
> > suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)?
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Java] GitHub usage stats seem interesting
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
At work we have one main hurdle to update one our projects from Log4j 1 to
2: How do we migrate installed applications from Log4j1 configurations to
Log4j2.
I started to work on this a long time ago but only got the basics working
which is in Log4j2 now: The idea is to read a Log4j1 config file as is and
map it to Log4j2. If you do not use a Log4j1 (or Log4j1 "extras")
appenders, all bets are off obviously.
Gary
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:38 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it
> had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is
> for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats:
>
> * log4j-api about 51k:
>
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D
> * log4j-core about 69k:
>
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D
>
> Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats:
>
> * log4j 1.x about 298k (!):
>
> https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D
> * commons-logging about 95k:
>
> https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D
> * slf4j-api about 319k (!!):
>
> https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D
> * logback-core about 61k:
>
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D
> * logback-classic about 148k:
>
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D
>
> It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all
> think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the
> zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that
> these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though
> that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various
> Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or
> even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and
> suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)?
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [Java] GitHub usage stats seem interesting
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Since log4j-core has more than log4j-api, yes, it seems to only
consider direct dependencies instead of transitive ones. I typically
just add log4j-core as a dependency since log4j-api comes with it for
free basically.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 15:55, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I’d have to look at it again but I suspect there might be a way that we could create a version of AppenderSkeleton that works with Log4j 2. The problem is that people were accessing the internals of Log4j so that even if we could provide support for those signatures I am not sure they would really work.
>
> As far as stats go, I tend to look at https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat <https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat> which shows download stats from Maven Central. There log4j 2 has been gaining on log4j 1 but still has a ways to go.
>
> FWIW, there is no way that there are more dependencies on log4j-core than on log4j-api since log4j-api is always required. I suspect the GitHub stats might only show direct dependencies and so the log4j-api numbers are too low.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Aug 29, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it
> > had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is
> > for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats:
> >
> > * log4j-api about 51k:
> > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D
> > * log4j-core about 69k:
> > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D
> >
> > Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats:
> >
> > * log4j 1.x about 298k (!):
> > https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D
> > * commons-logging about 95k:
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D
> > * slf4j-api about 319k (!!):
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D
> > * logback-core about 61k:
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D
> > * logback-classic about 148k:
> > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D
> >
> > It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all
> > think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the
> > zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that
> > these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though
> > that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various
> > Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or
> > even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and
> > suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)?
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [Java] GitHub usage stats seem interesting
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I’d have to look at it again but I suspect there might be a way that we could create a version of AppenderSkeleton that works with Log4j 2. The problem is that people were accessing the internals of Log4j so that even if we could provide support for those signatures I am not sure they would really work.
As far as stats go, I tend to look at https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat <https://repository.apache.org/#central-stat> which shows download stats from Maven Central. There log4j 2 has been gaining on log4j 1 but still has a ways to go.
FWIW, there is no way that there are more dependencies on log4j-core than on log4j-api since log4j-api is always required. I suspect the GitHub stats might only show direct dependencies and so the log4j-api numbers are too low.
Ralph
> On Aug 29, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At first I was concerned because on the log4j2 GitHub repo page, it
> had less than 1000 dependent users, though it turns out that stat is
> for the log4j2 parent pom, not the library. Anyways, some stats:
>
> * log4j-api about 51k:
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwMzE0MTQ%3D
> * log4j-core about 69k:
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xODAwNzg2NjI%3D
>
> Not bad, right? But then we check some other stats:
>
> * log4j 1.x about 298k (!):
> https://github.com/apache/log4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk4NzY0ODE%3D
> * commons-logging about 95k:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-logging/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MTUzNzU%3D
> * slf4j-api about 319k (!!):
> https://github.com/qos-ch/slf4j/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk3Nzg3MDg%3D
> * logback-core about 61k:
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyMDg%3D
> * logback-classic about 148k:
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS0xNzk5MzMyNDM%3D
>
> It seems like we have room to grow marketing-wise. What do you all
> think we can do to improve that? I think trying to get some of the
> zillions of 1.x users to upgrade already would be cool. Do note that
> these stats include tons of throwaway projects, but it seems as though
> that could even be influenced. How many setup guides for various
> Java/Scala/Kotlin/Groovy frameworks default to recommending logback or
> even log4j 1.x? Or projects that try to use java.util.logging and
> suffer for it (like Jenkins hehe)?
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>