You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Paul Smith <ps...@aconex.com> on 2008/07/04 00:46:05 UTC
Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
One of the last tasks to complete before a potential 'release' to the
Webstart version of Chainsaw is building a custom Receiver artifact
output that does not include the JMSReceiver & DBReceiver, both of
which require dependent jars that we obviously can't ship (because we
don't know what provider they'll need).
I plan to add a new output artifact in log4j-receivers that contains
this, and have it with a classifier of 'chainsaw-receivers', and have
it attached via buildhelper plugin so that it is pushed out as an
artifact. A similar approach would be to produce an artifact just
containing JMS+DB receivers. There would still be a 'non-classified'
binary containing all Receivers as standard.
That way Chainsaw can mark a dependency on it's relevant classifier.
This would mean that both the Webstart and standalone versions of
Chainsaw would require an end-user who wished to use JMSReceiver or
DBReceiver could download the 'extras' pack of Receivers, and drop it
into the plugins folder together with their provider jars.
thoughts?
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Jacob Kjome <ho...@visi.com>.
Why can't the old version of Chainsaw simply be re-packaged into a separate
jar? I think lots of people would be happy to have a smaller log4j artifact
to deploy and those that want to use chainsaw version 1 simply add another jar
to their classpath. This has nothing to do whether we deprecate the classes
or not, though I'm not against doing that either. It's just a repackaging.
Jake
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:46:22 -0700
"Scott Deboy" <sd...@comotivsystems.com> wrote:
> I don't have a problem with deprecating for one release, but I don't think
>we need to keep them in there until log4j 2 - we aren't talking about an API
>that folks are coding against and the bits never change, so folks interested
>in using the original Chainsaw can just use an old version of log4j.
>
> I'll mark the Chainsaw classes deprecated now and we can have the
>conversation about removing them once the next release is out.
>
>
> Scott Deboy
> COMOTIV SYSTEMS
> 111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
> Portland, OR 97201
>
> Telephone: 503.224.7496
> Cell: 503.997.1367
>Fax: 503.222.0185
>
> sdeboy@comotivsystems.com
>
> www.comotivsystems.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org]
> Sent: Sat 7/5/2008 9:37 AM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>
>> When does the previous version of Chainsaw get taken out of log4j jar?
>>
>> Earlier this week I responded to questions about how to configure
>> Chainsaw to use receivers. It turns out he was using the old
>> version of Chainsaw.
>>
>> Would be nice to avoid that sort of issue (and shrink the core log4j
>> footprint in the process).
>>
>
> The classes in org.apache.log4j.chainsaw that are included in log4j
> aren't marked as deprecated and so haven't even started the process
> toward elimination. The first step should be to mark them as
> deprecated and make sure that package.html explains the situation.
> There definitely out in log4j 2, but think they have to stick in until
> then.
>
>Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be any class names that appear in
> both the log4j embedded Chainsaw and the independent chainsaw.
> Otherwise, I'd suggest changing the package name used by chainsaw.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>.
I don't have a problem with deprecating for one release, but I don't think we need to keep them in there until log4j 2 - we aren't talking about an API that folks are coding against and the bits never change, so folks interested in using the original Chainsaw can just use an old version of log4j.
I'll mark the Chainsaw classes deprecated now and we can have the conversation about removing them once the next release is out.
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax: 503.222.0185
sdeboy@comotivsystems.com
www.comotivsystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org]
Sent: Sat 7/5/2008 9:37 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> When does the previous version of Chainsaw get taken out of log4j jar?
>
> Earlier this week I responded to questions about how to configure
> Chainsaw to use receivers. It turns out he was using the old
> version of Chainsaw.
>
> Would be nice to avoid that sort of issue (and shrink the core log4j
> footprint in the process).
>
The classes in org.apache.log4j.chainsaw that are included in log4j
aren't marked as deprecated and so haven't even started the process
toward elimination. The first step should be to mark them as
deprecated and make sure that package.html explains the situation.
There definitely out in log4j 2, but think they have to stick in until
then.
Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be any class names that appear in
both the log4j embedded Chainsaw and the independent chainsaw.
Otherwise, I'd suggest changing the package name used by chainsaw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> When does the previous version of Chainsaw get taken out of log4j jar?
>
> Earlier this week I responded to questions about how to configure
> Chainsaw to use receivers. It turns out he was using the old
> version of Chainsaw.
>
> Would be nice to avoid that sort of issue (and shrink the core log4j
> footprint in the process).
>
The classes in org.apache.log4j.chainsaw that are included in log4j
aren't marked as deprecated and so haven't even started the process
toward elimination. The first step should be to mark them as
deprecated and make sure that package.html explains the situation.
There definitely out in log4j 2, but think they have to stick in until
then.
Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be any class names that appear in
both the log4j embedded Chainsaw and the independent chainsaw.
Otherwise, I'd suggest changing the package name used by chainsaw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>.
When does the previous version of Chainsaw get taken out of log4j jar?
Earlier this week I responded to questions about how to configure Chainsaw to use receivers. It turns out he was using the old version of Chainsaw.
Would be nice to avoid that sort of issue (and shrink the core log4j footprint in the process).
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax: 503.222.0185
sdeboy@comotivsystems.com
www.comotivsystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org]
Sent: Fri 7/4/2008 10:55 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
On Jul 4, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Thorbj�rn Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Paul Smith skrev den 04-07-2008 02:02:
>>
>>>
>>> I think that there should be a core log4j which should cover those
>>> classes described in the printed manual, and that all the other
>>> stuff which has come up since then should go in one or more
>>> "extras" packages which may have a different release cycle than
>>> the core.
>>>
>>
>> But there is.. log4j-receivers is a separate maven module with an
>> independent release cycle. There's also log4j-extras.
> Great. Somehow I must have missed the explanation of this on the
> web pages, sorry.
>
> What is the state of the log4j-receivers and log4j-extras modules?
>
Extras 1.0 was released in August 2007. Receivers has not been
released, but I don't know of any blocking bugs. It has just been
waiting for a push to get Chainsaw and its dependencies released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Jul 4, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Paul Smith skrev den 04-07-2008 02:02:
>>
>>>
>>> I think that there should be a core log4j which should cover those
>>> classes described in the printed manual, and that all the other
>>> stuff which has come up since then should go in one or more
>>> "extras" packages which may have a different release cycle than
>>> the core.
>>>
>>
>> But there is.. log4j-receivers is a separate maven module with an
>> independent release cycle. There's also log4j-extras.
> Great. Somehow I must have missed the explanation of this on the
> web pages, sorry.
>
> What is the state of the log4j-receivers and log4j-extras modules?
>
Extras 1.0 was released in August 2007. Receivers has not been
released, but I don't know of any blocking bugs. It has just been
waiting for a push to get Chainsaw and its dependencies released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <th...@gmail.com>.
Paul Smith skrev den 04-07-2008 02:02:
>
>>
>> I think that there should be a core log4j which should cover those
>> classes described in the printed manual, and that all the other stuff
>> which has come up since then should go in one or more "extras"
>> packages which may have a different release cycle than the core.
>>
>
> But there is.. log4j-receivers is a separate maven module with an
> independent release cycle. There's also log4j-extras.
Great. Somehow I must have missed the explanation of this on the web
pages, sorry.
What is the state of the log4j-receivers and log4j-extras modules?
--
THorbjørn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Paul Smith <ps...@aconex.com>.
On 04/07/2008, at 9:59 AM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Paul Smith skrev den 04-07-2008 00:46:
>> One of the last tasks to complete before a potential 'release' to
>> the Webstart version of Chainsaw is building a custom Receiver
>> artifact output that does not include the JMSReceiver & DBReceiver,
>> both of which require dependent jars that we obviously can't ship
>> (because we don't know what provider they'll need).
>>
>> I plan to add a new output artifact in log4j-receivers that
>> contains this, and have it with a classifier of 'chainsaw-
>> receivers', and have it attached via buildhelper plugin so that it
>> is pushed out as an artifact. A similar approach would be to
>> produce an artifact just containing JMS+DB receivers. There would
>> still be a 'non-classified' binary containing all Receivers as
>> standard.
>>
>> That way Chainsaw can mark a dependency on it's relevant
>> classifier. This would mean that both the Webstart and standalone
>> versions of Chainsaw would require an end-user who wished to use
>> JMSReceiver or DBReceiver could download the 'extras' pack of
>> Receivers, and drop it into the plugins folder together with their
>> provider jars.
>
> I think that there should be a core log4j which should cover those
> classes described in the printed manual, and that all the other
> stuff which has come up since then should go in one or more "extras"
> packages which may have a different release cycle than the core.
>
But there is.. log4j-receivers is a separate maven module with an
independent release cycle. There's also log4j-extras.
>
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <th...@gmail.com>.
Paul Smith skrev den 04-07-2008 00:46:
> One of the last tasks to complete before a potential 'release' to the
> Webstart version of Chainsaw is building a custom Receiver artifact
> output that does not include the JMSReceiver & DBReceiver, both of
> which require dependent jars that we obviously can't ship (because we
> don't know what provider they'll need).
>
> I plan to add a new output artifact in log4j-receivers that contains
> this, and have it with a classifier of 'chainsaw-receivers', and have
> it attached via buildhelper plugin so that it is pushed out as an
> artifact. A similar approach would be to produce an artifact just
> containing JMS+DB receivers. There would still be a 'non-classified'
> binary containing all Receivers as standard.
>
> That way Chainsaw can mark a dependency on it's relevant classifier.
> This would mean that both the Webstart and standalone versions of
> Chainsaw would require an end-user who wished to use JMSReceiver or
> DBReceiver could download the 'extras' pack of Receivers, and drop it
> into the plugins folder together with their provider jars.
I think that there should be a core log4j which should cover those
classes described in the printed manual, and that all the other stuff
which has come up since then should go in one or more "extras" packages
which may have a different release cycle than the core.
The reason is the simple that log4j-core for 1.2 is mature code which
should get few updates, where the auxillary libraries appears still to
be rough here and there, so I think it would be beneficial to have two
seperate release tracks.
--
Thorbjørn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Jul 3, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> log4j-receivers-3rdpartydeps?
>
> pretty hokey but a bit more accurate
>
The first thing that makes me think of is the third party licensing
policy (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) and suggests use of
code that is not under the ASL. I'm not sure if we want to suggest a
connection.
I'm guessing on this, so correct me if I'm wrong. Are we talking
about receivers that are compiled against an abstract API (along the
lines of JAXP or JDBC) but depends the availability of a concrete
implementation to work and where the abstract API is compatible with
the ASL but the concrete implementation may be an incompatible
license? Or is it something different? Want to lay out specifics
(API's and their license, implementations and their licenses)?
What about making apache-log4j-receivers a multi-artifact project, so
you'd have apache-log4j-receivers.jar, apache-log4j-receivers-db.jar
and apache-log4j-receivers-jms.jar?
This scenario seems to be what OSGi (see http://felix.apache.org) was
designed to support where components could use their manifest to
declare what services they require and the framework figures out what
should be loaded. Unfortunately, I've never had time to ramp up on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>.
log4j-receivers-3rdpartydeps?
pretty hokey but a bit more accurate
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax: 503.222.0185
sdeboy@comotivsystems.com
www.comotivsystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Smith [mailto:psmith@aconex.com]
Sent: Thu 7/3/2008 4:03 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
On 04/07/2008, at 8:54 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> +1
>
> Not sure about the name chainsaw-receivers (they can be used outside
> Chainsaw).
I'm all ears on suggestions! :) I think it blows too, but my brain is
tired this morning.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Paul Smith <ps...@aconex.com>.
On 04/07/2008, at 8:54 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> +1
>
> Not sure about the name chainsaw-receivers (they can be used outside
> Chainsaw).
I'm all ears on suggestions! :) I think it blows too, but my brain is
tired this morning.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
RE: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
Posted by Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>.
+1
Not sure about the name chainsaw-receivers (they can be used outside Chainsaw).
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax: 503.222.0185
sdeboy@comotivsystems.com
www.comotivsystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Smith [mailto:psmith@aconex.com]
Sent: Thu 7/3/2008 3:46 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Receivers artifacts and Chainsaw
One of the last tasks to complete before a potential 'release' to the
Webstart version of Chainsaw is building a custom Receiver artifact
output that does not include the JMSReceiver & DBReceiver, both of
which require dependent jars that we obviously can't ship (because we
don't know what provider they'll need).
I plan to add a new output artifact in log4j-receivers that contains
this, and have it with a classifier of 'chainsaw-receivers', and have
it attached via buildhelper plugin so that it is pushed out as an
artifact. A similar approach would be to produce an artifact just
containing JMS+DB receivers. There would still be a 'non-classified'
binary containing all Receivers as standard.
That way Chainsaw can mark a dependency on it's relevant classifier.
This would mean that both the Webstart and standalone versions of
Chainsaw would require an end-user who wished to use JMSReceiver or
DBReceiver could download the 'extras' pack of Receivers, and drop it
into the plugins folder together with their provider jars.
thoughts?
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org