On Nov 12, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Currently I'm testing integrating jansi to have colorized output, that > works fine and that's fun :-) > Again I don't see why we couldn't add a bit or a possibility of fun > within our distribution (or at least make that easily possible)
Sure, pretty easy with Logback: http://logback.qos.ch/manual/layouts.html#coloring If that is really the only feature then there is another provider that just does the coloring: https://github.com/jdillon/gossip But again really, I believe the decision is to determine whether all this really necessary. I think the order of operations that folks think is reasonable is: 1) Get the release out with SLF4J 2) Determine whether we need logging framework features 3) Pick one That's what I've gathered from the discussion so I think if we plan that route then we can do 3.1.0, and then have the discussions and if we get to 3) maybe integrate that into 3.1.1 or 3.1.2. Sound reasonable. >> >> Then we should ship this in its current form, discuss whether we need >> advanced logging, and then look at the implementations. I have one using >> Logback and I think that solution is more mature, and has a community and >> used heavily, even by many other Apache projects. I looked at Log4j2 and >> there are 2 people essentially (and one fellow with 2 commits) and I'm not >> sure how the project started but I don't think it even passes Apache >> Incubator standards. At first blush I don't see log4j2 as a good choice. >> Hence, I agree, a discussion is required. But I think we might arrive at the >> conclusion a logging framework is not necessary. >> > IMHO the number of contributors is not a good argument. Let's call it the ecosystem factor then. I consider users and contributors the most important there. As a library is nothing without users because a library with users generally has developers even if the library has reached maturity. A library with only developers and not many users isn't very valuable overall as there is really no ecosystem. > How many people really contributed to sisu There is only one alternative in the world for Sisu and that's Plexus. But at the core of Sisu is Guice which has a vast ecosystem. I don't think anyone will disagree it was a good choice to get off Plexus and use Sisu with the emulation layer it provides. Guice has had 5-10 developers at any given point in time and the technology is evolving in the form of Dagger by Square. So Sisu is unique in what it does, but Guice is not. We picked a solid base with a good ecosystem to build on. Maven 3.x is actually a testament to how flexible Guice is and how responsible they were to absorbing our many changes to make it work. None of this would have worked without a lot of work and help from many people. Guice is mature, has lots of users, actively developed and evolving. In this case we are talking about the exact opposite. We have the most mature SLF4J provider with a history, users, lots of forks and pull requests and is pretty much becoming the de facto standard. On the other side you have a logging framework that no one really uses in comparison. There is a completely mature alternative. > or aether ? Again, what's the alternative to choose from? Both Aether and Sisu required a lot of specialized work for Maven. No one else really has time or energy to do these things. It's not commodity infrastructure like DI or logging. > And those > libraries are more core part of maven than a logging framework. > What you call integrators can easily change it (as core will only use > slf4j api and no framework specific except maybe some sys props as > it's already the case with your changes using slf4j-simple) but AFAIK > that's not possible for those libraries ! > I just have a look at the impact graphs in github and frankly not a > lot of people contributed to those libraries. > > At least with log4j2 we will have a framework maintained by the Apache > community so I think number of contributors will grow.. > That's speculation and empirically from the stats that doesn't look to be the case: http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Flogging Ceki is still the largest contributor in that community and he's not there anymore. I'm personally not in favor of giving an unproven library like log4j2 undeserved legitimacy by being used in Maven when Logback exists. No one is working on log4j really anymore so how can you say that work will continue with log4j2? And the only guy really still working on log4j is not really working on log4j2? http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Flogging%2Flog4j%2Ftrunk I just don't see using log4j2 making much sense. At any rate, can we agree on the plan above and table the discussion of whether we need a framework and the possibly selection of one until 3.1.1/2? That gives us time to discuss and create example implementations if the outcome of the discussion is to move forward with framework selection. Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
