How many new modules are we talking about, concretely? Matt mentioned the StackOverflow questions about transitive dependencies etc, but I imagine splitting log4j-core into 5 or more new modules will also cause confusion... It won't be trivial for users to figure out which of the many modules they do or don't need. The coarse granularity of the current modules is a good thing for users.
What problem are we trying to solve? And how can we solve it with the least disruption to our users? Would it be an idea, for example, to provide separate jars for the separate modules, but in addition create a combined jar (log4j-core-all) that contains all the classes in log4j-core as well as the classes in the new modules we split out from core? On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Ralph here. I'm sure we'll figure out rather quickly which > modules are easy to put into rarely updated repositories. > > On 24 April 2017 at 11:39, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > I would prefer a hybrid approach. First things should be moved to > > separate modules. Then, if they don’t seem to be modified frequently they > > can be moved to a separate repo. For example, I think it would be OK for > > the Flume Appender to be in a separate repo. It hasn’t changed in quite a > > while and I can’t remember the last time it was modified due to changes > in > > Log4j it has and while continue to change with changes made in Flume > > releases. I imagine we have quite a few components that are similar. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2017 2:38 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" <mikael.stal...@magine.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I fully agree with Matt's both proposals. > > > > > > I'm skeptic to creating more repositories (than we already have) > though. > > I > > > think that we should start by splitting out modules from log4j-core and > > > keep those modules in the main repository with synchronized versioning > > and > > > releases, at least for the 2.9 release. We can always move those > modules > > to > > > other repositories later if we want to. > > > > > > > > > I do not like more repos either. Since we have already gone down the > more > > > modules road, I say we keep going. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > It is a lot of administrative work to create a new repository (as we > have > > > seen for log4j-scala), I don't want us to do all that work over and > over > > > again unless really necessary. > > > > > > We have a JIRA ticket for this: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1650 > > > > > > I have already started by breaking out log4j-server: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851 > > > > > > I think the next step is to break out plugins (layouts and appenders) > > with > > > optional 3rd party dependencies into their own modules. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I think I brought this topic up like 3 years ago when I was working on > > >> initial OSGi support, but now that we have 3 more years worth of code > > >> additions and optional features, I think this might be a more > > appropriate > > >> time to discuss it again in light of experience. > > >> > > >> Building log4j-core itself already takes a long time, and many plugins > > >> aren't updated very often at all. In the past, requiring users to > simply > > >> add log4j-core plus any transitive dependencies to use optional > features > > >> seemed to work well enough, but I still think that's a confusing > > >> distribution mechanism as demonstrated by the numerous bug reports and > > >> Stack Overflow posts regarding missing transitive dependencies for > > various > > >> features. I spent some time experimenting with Log4j Boot a little > while > > >> ago to help alleviate this problem, but this may be unnecessary if we > > can > > >> agree to modularize log4j-core itself. > > >> > > >> I have two different proposals, both of which can be used at the same > > > time. > > >> > > >> 1. Split out everything from log4j-core that requires 3rd party > > >> dependencies (except for AsyncLogger, though perhaps we could consider > > >> shading and renaming those classes like some other low level libraries > > do > > >> with JCTools). Ideally, I'd like to see each module have required > > >> dependencies instead of optional ones, so that if, for instance, I > > include > > >> a "log4j-config-yaml" dependency, I know that Log4j will support YAML > > >> configuration without having to specify the individual Jackson > > >> dependencies. > > >> > > >> 2. Split out from log4j-core a sort of log4j-spi module which defines > > >> interfaces, abstract classes, and annotations for plugins that would > be > > >> promoted to the same level of backwards compatibility guarantees as > > >> log4j-api. This would aid in cementing what we really wish to maintain > > >> compatibility with in the backend while allowing other modules to have > > > less > > >> strict guarantees. > > >> > > >> With proposal #1, I'd think that we could more easily start moving > > modules > > >> into separate repositories and release trains. Without #2, though, > this > > >> makes version support more annoying to handle, but that's what we'll > > face > > >> regardless as we separate more repositories. If we go this route, then > > >> there will be no need for a Log4j Boot subproject. > > >> > > >> What do you all think? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > [image: MagineTV] > > > > > > *Mikael Ståldal* > > > Senior software developer > > > > > > *Magine TV* > > > mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > > > > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > > > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > > > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may > > not > > > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > > > email. > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
