You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-user@logging.apache.org by Wayne Cannon <wc...@turinnetworks.com> on 2007/06/05 17:43:28 UTC
Great product like log4j stagnant?
In a different thread, Steve Souza said that log4j development had
stagnated (my words, not his, re version 1.3). Is this true? If this
is true, is it simply because log4j is a mature product and is a good
product needing little ongoing development effort of significance, or is
there a new/replacement product carrying the de facto logging charter
into the future (e.g. compatible with commons-logging)?
Respectfully,
Wayne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Great product like log4j stagnant?
Posted by Steve Souza <ja...@gmail.com>.
I should clarify that there is definitely new development, however the
codeline labeled 1.3 is no longer being worked (for reasons I don't know).
But as a previous poster said log4j is still alive and well and will roll
most of these changes into the log4j 1.2 codeline. We are at 1.2.14, now
and a responder to my email stated much of the features of 1.3 have been
moved into 1.2.15 and will be released in a couple days.
On 6/5/07, Wayne Cannon <wc...@turinnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> In a different thread, Steve Souza said that log4j development had
> stagnated (my words, not his, re version 1.3). Is this true? If this
> is true, is it simply because log4j is a mature product and is a good
> product needing little ongoing development effort of significance, or is
> there a new/replacement product carrying the de facto logging charter
> into the future (e.g. compatible with commons-logging)?
>
> Respectfully,
> Wayne
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Great product like log4j stagnant?
Posted by Wayne Cannon <wc...@turinnetworks.com>.
Thanks for the clarification, Curt. It helps a lot. --Wayne
Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Wayne Cannon wrote:
>
>> In a different thread, Steve Souza said that log4j development had
>> stagnated (my words, not his, re version 1.3). Is this true? If
>> this is true, is it simply because log4j is a mature product and is a
>> good product needing little ongoing development effort of
>> significance, or is there a new/replacement product carrying the de
>> facto logging charter into the future (e.g. compatible with
>> commons-logging)?
>>
>
> Development on log4j 1.3 has effectively ended in preference for
> working on log4j 2.0 designed for JDK 1.5 and higher and continued
> support of log4j 1.2 for existing applications and earlier JDK's.
> log4j 1.3 was stuck in having too many compatibility issues to be just
> a dot release but not a radical enough change to address some long
> standing issues. Many months of work were done to improve the
> compatibility between log4j 1.3 and log4j 1.2, but many hard issues
> still remained. It seemed better to bring features originally
> designed for log4j 1.3 back so they could be used with deployed log4j
> 1.2 versions and move on to something for the modern era. Some early
> experiments for log4j 2.0 are in the sandbox, but it hasn't been built
> out to a functioning framework yet.
>
> logBACK does position itself as a migration path for log4j users. The
> development model, design objectives and licenses differ between
> logBACK and log4j and the resulting products will have different
> strengths. As a log4j core developer, I feel that I can't become
> intimately familiar with logBACK code due to its license and the
> potential repercussions of an accidental code leakage into log4j, so
> I'm not going to be in a position to give a point by point comparison
> on logBACK and log4j 1.2 or log4j 2.0.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Great product like log4j stagnant?
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Wayne Cannon wrote:
> In a different thread, Steve Souza said that log4j development had
> stagnated (my words, not his, re version 1.3). Is this true? If
> this is true, is it simply because log4j is a mature product and is
> a good product needing little ongoing development effort of
> significance, or is there a new/replacement product carrying the de
> facto logging charter into the future (e.g. compatible with commons-
> logging)?
>
Development on log4j 1.3 has effectively ended in preference for
working on log4j 2.0 designed for JDK 1.5 and higher and continued
support of log4j 1.2 for existing applications and earlier JDK's.
log4j 1.3 was stuck in having too many compatibility issues to be
just a dot release but not a radical enough change to address some
long standing issues. Many months of work were done to improve the
compatibility between log4j 1.3 and log4j 1.2, but many hard issues
still remained. It seemed better to bring features originally
designed for log4j 1.3 back so they could be used with deployed log4j
1.2 versions and move on to something for the modern era. Some early
experiments for log4j 2.0 are in the sandbox, but it hasn't been
built out to a functioning framework yet.
logBACK does position itself as a migration path for log4j users.
The development model, design objectives and licenses differ between
logBACK and log4j and the resulting products will have different
strengths. As a log4j core developer, I feel that I can't become
intimately familiar with logBACK code due to its license and the
potential repercussions of an accidental code leakage into log4j, so
I'm not going to be in a position to give a point by point comparison
on logBACK and log4j 1.2 or log4j 2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org