I asked for details about the future of log4j2 on the logging user list: https://lists.apache.org/thread/6n6bkgwj8tglgdgzz8wxhkx1p1xpwodl
Let's see what they say. Thanks, Mickael On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:23 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > Thanks for starting the discussion and for summarizing the state of play. I > agree with you that it would be important to understand how long log4j2 > will be supported for. An alternative would be sl4fj 2.x and logback. > > Ismael > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:17 PM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Starting a new thread to discuss the current logging situation in > > Kafka. I'll restate everything we know but see the [DISCUSS] Road to > > Kafka 4.0 if you are interested in what has already been said. [0] > > > > Currently Kafka uses SLF4J and reload4j as the logging backend. We had > > to adopt reload4j in 3.2.0 as log4j was end of life and has a few > > security issues. > > > > In 2020 we adopted KIP-653 to upgrade to log4j2. Due to > > incompatibilities in the configuration mechanism with log4j/reload4j > > we decide to delay the upgrade to the next major release, Kafka 4.0. > > > > Kafka also currently provides a log4j appender. In 2022, we adopted > > KIP-719 to deprecate it since we wanted to switch to log4j2. At the > > time Apache Logging also had a Kafka appender that worked with log4j2. > > They since deprecated that appender in log4j2 and it is not part of > > log4j3. [1] > > > > Log4j3 is also nearing release but it seems it will require Java 17. > > The website states Java 11 [2] but the artifacts from the latest 3.0.0 > > beta are built for Java 17. I was not able to find clear maintenance > > statement about log4j2 once log4j3 gets released. > > > > The question is where do we go from here? > > We can stick with our plans: > > 1. Deprecate the appender in the next 3.x release and plan to remove it in > > 4.0 > > 2. Do the necessary work to switch to log4j2 in 4.0 > > If so we need people to drive these work items. We have PRs for these > > with hopefully the bulk of the code but they need > > rebasing/completing/reviewing. > > > > Otherwise we can reconsider KIP-653 and/or KIP-719. > > > > Assuming log4j2 does not go end of life in the near future (We can > > reach out to Apache Logging to clarify that point.), I think it still > > makes sense to adopt it. I would also go ahead and deprecate our > > appender. > > > > Thanks, > > Mickael > > > > 0: https://lists.apache.org/thread/q0sz910o1y9mhq159oy16w31d6dzh79f > > 1: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/1951 > > 2: https://logging.apache.org/log4j/3.x/#requirements > >
