Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

[se...@gmail.com, se...@gmail.com]

Dominik,

There are a number of issues in your tracker that are directly related to sticking with NetStandard 1.3.  That was an early release and must have been painful to try to do a full implementation of Log4Net.  2 issues dear to me are Variable Expansion (Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable was not implemented in 1.3, but was in 1.4) and Line Numbers (StackTrace in 1.3 was not fully implemented, but was added by 1.5). 

Personally I see NetStandard 2.0 as the first release where a large project could be ported, or started from scratch in .Net Core.  It finally has the features and the performance to be a contender with .Net and other languages (NodeJs, Java, etc).  We're coding on Windows/Mac and deploying on RHEL 7.  Having a full implementation of log4net is very important.  NetStandard 1.3 implemented "most" of log4net.  NetStandard could bring the rest of the missing features.

BTW, some list of what is missing might be good.  Unless i missed it, it's left up to the user to discover.

Thanks,

Sean   

On 2018/06/28 06:31:26, Dominik Psenner <dp...@apache.org> wrote: 
> Hi Bart,
> 
> thanks for your interest in log4net. There's an issue for this and we 
> have an open pull request that adds this target. We have however no plan 
> yet of when this should happen. By targeting log4net against 
> netstandard-1.3 it can be referenced from that netstandard and any 
> netstandard from that onwards. Therefore we do not see any functional 
> requirement that explains of why we should add netstandard-2.0 as a 
> target. Would you like to join the mailing list (dev@logging.apache.org) 
> to explain further why you would like to have log4net add the 
> netstandard-2.0 target on top of netstandard-1.3?
> 
> Best regards,
> Dominik
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'
> Date: 	Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:01:04 +0000
> From: 	NuGet Gallery <su...@nuget.org>
> Reply-To: 	Logging PMC <pr...@logging.apache.org>, bartsipes 
> <ba...@outlook.com>
> To: 	Apache.Logging <pr...@logging.apache.org>
> 
> 
> 
> _User bartsipes <[disclosed-email]> sends the following message to the owners of Package '[log4net 2.0.8](https://www.nuget.org/packages/log4net/2.0.8)'._
> 
> Hi, will you be updating log4net to target .NET Standard 2.0 any time soon?
> 
> Thanks, Bart.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> <em style="font-size: 0.8em;">
>      To stop receiving contact emails as an owner of this package, sign in to the NuGet Gallery and
>      [change your email notification settings](https://www.nuget.org/account).
> </em>
> 
> 

Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

[Dominik Psenner <dp...@apache.org>]

On 2018-07-19 22:17, sean.covel@gmail.com wrote:
> Dominik,
>
> There are a number of issues in your tracker that are directly related to sticking with NetStandard 1.3.  That was an early release and must have been painful to try to do a full implementation of Log4Net.  2 issues dear to me are Variable Expansion (Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable was not implemented in 1.3, but was in 1.4) and Line Numbers (StackTrace in 1.3 was not fully implemented, but was added by 1.5).
>
> Personally I see NetStandard 2.0 as the first release where a large project could be ported, or started from scratch in .Net Core.  It finally has the features and the performance to be a contender with .Net and other languages (NodeJs, Java, etc).  We're coding on Windows/Mac and deploying on RHEL 7.  Having a full implementation of log4net is very important.  NetStandard 1.3 implemented "most" of log4net.  NetStandard could bring the rest of the missing features.
>
> BTW, some list of what is missing might be good.  Unless i missed it, it's left up to the user to discover.

Hi Sean,

I love to see your interest in log4net and I'll gladly help with 
information and guidance where ever I can.

The netstandard-1.3 target came in as a patch. I'm afraid the original 
contributor will not maintain that contribution. Personally, I would 
drop the support for the netstandard-1.3 target and replace it with 
netstandard-2.0. I also see netstandard-2.0 as a good candidate to 
become the one and only supported target framework. This would greatly 
reduce the maintenance hell we're currently in because of the dozens of 
framework targets that log4net currently supports. Unfortunately such a 
decision would break compatibility with previous releases and would also 
drop the support for long living targets like net-2.0. Further it is far 
beyond the reach of any future release with the human resources that the 
project has available at the moment. This means that it is left up to 
the community to decide about the future of log4net. As stated in a 
previous comment about this topic, I also envision to re-shape log4net 
into a core assembly along with various satellite assemblies that 
provide appenders and other functionality. Such a move can be made when 
the community decides to break backwards compatibility.

I'm willing to invest time into these topics and am intrigued to look 
forward to the future of this project. At the same time I see it as a 
requirement that more people step up to help shaping the future of 
log4net. Until today I've invested into reducing the number of hurdles 
developers have to face when starting to contribute to log4net, for 
example by improving the continuous integration. Unfortunately this has 
not yet produced the results that I hoped for but I'll keep that task up 
with the time that I can donate to the community.

Cheers,
Dominik