You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2021/06/22 21:54:50 UTC
Log4j master branch
I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building modules that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended to build them in their own project. This means
log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests would have the test classes as its main source and
the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try when I get some time.
Ralph
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I’ve been making good progress on the bean stuff. Hopefully untangling the
annotation processor from the annotations and the service class will help
IDE compatibility. As it is, I’ve been running tests from the command line
in individual modules as suggested by Ralph. While not ideal, it’s turned
out to take only slightly longer than the test run buttons in the IDE
anyways. And if we can get tests to execute as quickly as in the API
module, then it doesn’t matter all that much if IDEs struggle still.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 06:23 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, yes, thank you Ralph, and my mistake: I was not building with Java 11.
> Eclipse is still messed up but that's a different story...
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 3:30 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Master no longer needs a toolchain file. It only uses Java 11. It sorta
> > sounds like you are running with Java 8.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jul 10, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm exasperated by our build on the master branch; JPMS feels like the
> > > iceberg that will sink Java.
> > >
> > > I can build release-2.x nicely with 'mvn clean package'
> > >
> > > If I do that on master I get:
> > > ...
> > > [INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j 2 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:
> > > [INFO]
> > > [INFO] Apache Log4j 2 ..................................... SUCCESS [
> > > 1.100 s]
> > > [INFO] Apache Log4j API ................................... FAILURE [
> > > 0.965 s]
> > > [INFO] Apache Log4j Plugins ............................... SKIPPED
> > > ..
> > >
> > > with NO error. WTF?! GitHub actions build master just fine. What am I
> > > missing? I have a toolchain XML fie with Java 8, 11, 15, 16.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:16 AM Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yazici@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really
> > much
> > >> appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier
> proposal,
> > >> which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we
> > have
> > >> in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am
> looking
> > >> forward to the outcome.
> > >>
> > >> For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available
> here:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <
> > ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building
> > modules
> > >>> that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
> > >>> approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now
> recommended
> > >> to
> > >>> build them in their own project. This means
> > >>> log4j-core would only contain the main source and that
> log4j-core-tests
> > >>> would have the test classes as its main source and
> > >>> the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try
> > when
> > >>> I get some time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ralph
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Ah, yes, thank you Ralph, and my mistake: I was not building with Java 11.
Eclipse is still messed up but that's a different story...
Gary
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 3:30 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> Master no longer needs a toolchain file. It only uses Java 11. It sorta
> sounds like you are running with Java 8.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jul 10, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm exasperated by our build on the master branch; JPMS feels like the
> > iceberg that will sink Java.
> >
> > I can build release-2.x nicely with 'mvn clean package'
> >
> > If I do that on master I get:
> > ...
> > [INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j 2 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j 2 ..................................... SUCCESS [
> > 1.100 s]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j API ................................... FAILURE [
> > 0.965 s]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j Plugins ............................... SKIPPED
> > ..
> >
> > with NO error. WTF?! GitHub actions build master just fine. What am I
> > missing? I have a toolchain XML fie with Java 8, 11, 15, 16.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:16 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really
> much
> >> appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier proposal,
> >> which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we
> have
> >> in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am looking
> >> forward to the outcome.
> >>
> >> For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available here:
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building
> modules
> >>> that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
> >>> approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended
> >> to
> >>> build them in their own project. This means
> >>> log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests
> >>> would have the test classes as its main source and
> >>> the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
> >>>
> >>> I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try
> when
> >>> I get some time.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>.
I would have expected the build to fail (via maven-enforcer-plugin?) when
the build is run with a JDK that is not 8.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 9:30 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> Master no longer needs a toolchain file. It only uses Java 11. It sorta
> sounds like you are running with Java 8.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jul 10, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm exasperated by our build on the master branch; JPMS feels like the
> > iceberg that will sink Java.
> >
> > I can build release-2.x nicely with 'mvn clean package'
> >
> > If I do that on master I get:
> > ...
> > [INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j 2 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j 2 ..................................... SUCCESS [
> > 1.100 s]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j API ................................... FAILURE [
> > 0.965 s]
> > [INFO] Apache Log4j Plugins ............................... SKIPPED
> > ..
> >
> > with NO error. WTF?! GitHub actions build master just fine. What am I
> > missing? I have a toolchain XML fie with Java 8, 11, 15, 16.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:16 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really
> much
> >> appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier proposal,
> >> which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we
> have
> >> in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am looking
> >> forward to the outcome.
> >>
> >> For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available here:
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building
> modules
> >>> that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
> >>> approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended
> >> to
> >>> build them in their own project. This means
> >>> log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests
> >>> would have the test classes as its main source and
> >>> the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
> >>>
> >>> I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try
> when
> >>> I get some time.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Master no longer needs a toolchain file. It only uses Java 11. It sorta sounds like you are running with Java 8.
Ralph
> On Jul 10, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm exasperated by our build on the master branch; JPMS feels like the
> iceberg that will sink Java.
>
> I can build release-2.x nicely with 'mvn clean package'
>
> If I do that on master I get:
> ...
> [INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j 2 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:
> [INFO]
> [INFO] Apache Log4j 2 ..................................... SUCCESS [
> 1.100 s]
> [INFO] Apache Log4j API ................................... FAILURE [
> 0.965 s]
> [INFO] Apache Log4j Plugins ............................... SKIPPED
> ..
>
> with NO error. WTF?! GitHub actions build master just fine. What am I
> missing? I have a toolchain XML fie with Java 8, 11, 15, 16.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:16 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really much
>> appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier proposal,
>> which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we have
>> in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am looking
>> forward to the outcome.
>>
>> For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available here:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building modules
>>> that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
>>> approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended
>> to
>>> build them in their own project. This means
>>> log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests
>>> would have the test classes as its main source and
>>> the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
>>>
>>> I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try when
>>> I get some time.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I'm exasperated by our build on the master branch; JPMS feels like the
iceberg that will sink Java.
I can build release-2.x nicely with 'mvn clean package'
If I do that on master I get:
...
[INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j 2 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:
[INFO]
[INFO] Apache Log4j 2 ..................................... SUCCESS [
1.100 s]
[INFO] Apache Log4j API ................................... FAILURE [
0.965 s]
[INFO] Apache Log4j Plugins ............................... SKIPPED
..
with NO error. WTF?! GitHub actions build master just fine. What am I
missing? I have a toolchain XML fie with Java 8, 11, 15, 16.
Gary
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:16 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really much
> appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier proposal,
> which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we have
> in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am looking
> forward to the outcome.
>
> For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available here:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building modules
> > that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
> > approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended
> to
> > build them in their own project. This means
> > log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests
> > would have the test classes as its main source and
> > the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
> >
> > I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try when
> > I get some time.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
>
Re: Log4j master branch
Posted by Volkan Yazıcı <vo...@gmail.com>.
That is really nice of you to investigate this further Ralph, really much
appreciated! I think your findings are aligned with my earlier proposal,
which in turn will hopefully significantly reduce the JPMS hazard we have
in "master". Please take your time and go ahead with this. I am looking
forward to the outcome.
For the records, Ralph's post to Maven Developer List is available here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17d7e36616f6779019dea87abaf4823276adf93a2f9af14b70f443f5%40%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> I have asked on the Maven dev list about the process of building modules
> that contain test jars. It seems the recommended
> approach for test jars in general has changed and it is now recommended to
> build them in their own project. This means
> log4j-core would only contain the main source and that log4j-core-tests
> would have the test classes as its main source and
> the log4j-core unit tests in src/test/java.
>
> I have my doubts that this will work but I plan on giving this a try when
> I get some time.
>
> Ralph
>