Thank you for the response. I would love to know why you think Log4J2 would be good to migrate to (hypothetically) in the future. Your analysis is always insightful Christopher.
On Mar 20, 2018 10:08 PM, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: Like most things, the status quo can be explained by history (momentum) and initiative (or lack thereof). Log4j2 debuted its first release (2.0) in 2014. This project began around 2013, and was built on products already using Log4j1 pretty heavily, but also using dependencies which used SLF4J and logback. Hadoop was tightly coupled to Log4j1 (at least, prior to version 3... I haven't checked 3 yet), and other libraries Fluo has used (Twill?) have been tightly coupled to logback. Overall, it's very difficult to converge on a single logging framework across multiple Java libraries. I think there's a strong case for using Log4j2, but it would take some work to migrate, and address the edge cases within the libraries Fluo uses/depends on (sometimes this requires doing less... like not manipulating log levels dynamically or not manipulating logging during ITs to reduce spamminess). I would be in favor of migrating to Log4j2, if somebody were interested in working on that. The migration is probably pretty easy... the tough part is making sure the class path is set up correctly (just because we switch, doesn't mean the libraries we use won't still try to log to slf4j or log4j1). On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20 PM Kenneth Mcfarland < kennethmcfarl...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm curious why we use our current logging facade over Log4J2. It has a lot > of tuning and garbage collecting when used as the backend but also can be > used as a facade like SLF4J, logback etc. > > I've always been sorta baffled why Apache projects don't use Log4J2 it's > really old. Convenience at that time? > > This would be a lot of work but I do have friends there like Gary Gregory > if we could consider refactoring to use it. To say again Log4J2 can facade > to all the popular impls like SLF4J does. > > This is something id love to hear opinions on! Thanks guys!! >
