On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:44 PM Carter Kozak <cko...@ckozak.net> wrote:
> If the API is a minimal core, that sounds like a bug! However, I don't > think that's quite the case, it requires that the consumer implement their > own loggers entirely. What I'm thinking about is more of an > spi/implementation separation akin to our loggers, but for transforming > configuration bytes into a log4j configuration. > I thought that was the point of splitting out a log4j-plugins module, but maybe that's wishful thinking on my part. Gary > > -ck > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, at 19:38, Matt Sicker wrote: > > A truly minimal core that only supports properties is the API itself. > Look into SimpleLogger. > > > > — > > Matt Sicker > > > > > On Jan 26, 2022, at 18:29, Carter Kozak <cko...@ckozak.net> wrote: > > > > > > I agree with Gary about a truly minimal core (though I'm going to > stay out of the naming argument, it's one of the two hardest problems in > CS). My largest use-case doesn't involve parsing any sort of configuration > -- it's all programmatic. I'd benefit from the ability to run without any > sort of DI, plugin system, or configuration parser. > > > > > > -ck > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, at 18:50, Matt Sicker wrote: > > >> I'm not a fan of the properties format for the same reasons as Ralph. > > >> I think we should try to support a structured format like JSON by > > >> default as a JSON parser is fairly small to define when you don't need > > >> fancy annotation-related features. > > >> > > >> The plugins module might seem heavy, but the large number of > > >> additional lines of code that would be necessary in every plugin to do > > >> all the same boilerplate would likely be far greater than the plugin > > >> system. Just think of all the string conversion, null checks, empty > > >> checks, deprecated static factory methods, and config files that would > > >> end up looking like Spring beans.xml files, if the plugin system > > >> didn't exist. This would just be thousands more lines for > > >> auto-formatters to have fun with. > > >> > > >> While it'd be neat to just reuse another dependency for configuration > > >> and dependency injection, what logging framework would that dependency > > >> use? Also, any off-the-shelf DI framework will have far more features > > >> than we need to parse a config file and create its graph of objects. > > >> If there were something like a pico-guice type framework that we could > > >> copy into the library like picocli, then that would be another story. > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:08 AM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> Is a truly small core possible for 3.0? > > >>> > > >>> What I mean by that is that I'd like to run an app with log4j > without an > > >>> XML configuration, or JSON, or YAML, or the whole plugin > infrastructure, > > >>> scanning, or reading a plugin metadata db. Just a properties files. > And if > > >>> I can only run with just a properties file, I should be able to run > only > > >>> with system properties. > > >>> > > >>> With the addition in master of a separate log4j-plugins module, on > top of > > >>> log4j-core, 3.0 is feeling heavier and heavier, an so complicated. > > >>> > > >>> I am not an fan of inventing a whole configuration and plugin > system, I'd > > >>> rather depend one even if it is copying it. It just feels like > > >>> not-invented-here syndrome. > > >>> > > >>> As an aside, I have never liked that we have a jar called log4j-core > but on > > >>> the web site it's called "Log4j Implementation", it's confusing. > > >>> > > >>> For 3.0, it would be nice to make it obvious that what depends on > java.base > > >>> be in a module called log4j-base instead of core. > > >>> > > >>> Gary > > >> > > >
