I logged a Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10217
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Yeah some should be removed, but mind that some 3rd party libraries > are using log4j hardcoded as dependency so not all can be removed. > > But I think camel-scr is a mistake to use log4j. > > Its worthwhile I think to take a look which one can be removed or not. > Feel free to log a JIRA and work on this. > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicola Ferraro <nferr...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > Doing integration tests I found that some components include logging > > implementations outside the test scope, so I did a fast check: > > > > *for comp in $(ls | grep "camel-" | grep -v ".iml"); do* > > * cd $comp* > > * mvn dependency:tree | grep > > 'log4j\|logback\|slf4j-simple\|slf4j-jdk14\|slf4j-log4j12' | grep -v > test | > > xargs -I line echo "$(pwd) line"* > > * cd ..* > > *done* > > > > Although it is ok for a spring-boot starter to include a logging > > implementation, they should not be included in normal component modules > IMO. > > > > Should these dependencies be removed? > > > > > > The results: > > *./camel/components/camel-atmos [INFO] | +- > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-gora [INFO] | +- > > org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-gora [INFO] | - > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-hbase [INFO] | +- > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-jbpm [INFO] +- > > org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-jbpm [INFO] | - > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-jt400 [INFO] +- > > org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-jt400 [INFO] | - > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-krati [INFO] | - > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-openshift [INFO] | - > > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-salesforce [INFO] +- > > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-scr [INFO] +- > > org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-scr [INFO] +- log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spark [INFO] | +- > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spark [INFO] | | +- > > log4j:apache-log4j-extras:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spark-rest [INFO] | +- > > org.slf4j:slf4j-simple:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot [INFO] | | +- > > ch.qos.logback:logback-classic:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot [INFO] | | | - > > ch.qos.logback:logback-core:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot [INFO] | | - > > org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot-starter [INFO] | | +- > > ch.qos.logback:logback-classic:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot-starter [INFO] | | | - > > ch.qos.logback:logback-core:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-spring-boot-starter [INFO] | | - > > org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-zipkin-starter [INFO] | | +- > > ch.qos.logback:logback-classic:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-zipkin-starter [INFO] | | | - > > ch.qos.logback:logback-core:jar:1.1.7:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-zipkin-starter [INFO] | | - > > org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j:jar:1.7.21:compile* > > *./camel/components/camel-zookeeper [INFO] | +- > > log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.17:compile* > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Yep, I meant upgrading log4j for test only, run-time should > >> definitively use slf4j-api (or maybe a custom facade) > >> > >> --- > >> Luca Burgazzoli > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Luca Burgazzoli < > lburgazz...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> as log4j 1.2 is EOL since a year, would it make sense to move to > log4j > >> 2 ? > >> >> > >> > > >> > We only use it for testing. No runtime dependency. > >> > > >> > > >> > log4j v2 did not support log4j.properties file so any migration was a > >> > real pain as the log4j xml file format is verbose and clunky to work > >> > with. > >> > > >> > Only recently they added support for .properties file but I think they > >> > may have changed the syntax slightly (not sure). > >> > > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22485074/log4j-2-doesnt-support-log4j-properties-file-anymore > >> > > >> > > >> > And I think I read somewhere that log4j v1 has problems with Java 9. > >> > > >> > If migration can be super easy on current 2.18 then it is okay. > >> > Some kind of migration tool that can covert v1 properties to v2 > >> > properties then that can be doable. > >> > > >> > But if not then I would like to postpone this to Camel 3. > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> Luca Burgazzoli > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Claus Ibsen > >> > ----------------- > >> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > >> > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Nicola Ferraro <nferr...@redhat.com> > > Senior Software Engineer, JBoss Fuse > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >
