On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:37 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t really care what doc format the manual uses, so long as they are all 
> the
> same and it is easy to update the manual outside of a release.

+1

Gary

>
> Ralph
>
> > On May 18, 2022, at 4:15 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
> >
> > 5. Manual is migrated from Markdown and XDOC to AsciiDoc – plus, 2 Markdown
> > files, sadly.
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 3:38 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> This topic has been discussed several times, but the list of features that
> >> need to be in version 3.0 is still fuzzy to me. From what I gathered
> >> version 3.0 requires:
> >>
> >> 1. JPMS support with non-automatic modules. This seems to be done for
> >> `log4j-api`, `log4j-plugins` and partially for `log4j-core`. The remaining
> >> modules need to be converted and I think there are still some classes if
> >> `log4j-api`, `log4j-plugins` and `log4j-core` that we can move to private
> >> packages. For example all the implementations of `PropertySource` in
> >> `log4j-api` do not need to be exported.
> >>
> >> 2. A DI system, which is certainly ready. However there are still places in
> >> the code where it is not used. For example the managers are still directly
> >> instantiated by the appenders, as well as some `log4j-1.2-api` builders
> >> that require constructor parameters.
> >>
> >> 3. The properties enhancement (
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LOGGING/Properties+Enhancement
> >> )
> >> proposed by Ralph. Personally I would like a `log4j-api` jar common to
> >> multiple web applications to be able to correctly detect a per-webapp
> >> `log4j2.configurationFile` property.
> >>
> >> 4. We could profit from the major version change to move some things
> >> around: for example do we really need three different file appenders? I
> >> think that from a use perspective a single `FileAppender` with three
> >> different file managers would be more intuitive.
> >>
> >> Piotr
> >>
>

Reply via email to