On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >> I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix >> for the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency >> with parallel builds and who knows what else. This will patch/change #5 and >> many hours of trying to get SLF4J Simple to work but I think we're pushing >> the simple implementation beyond its scope. So I'd just like to put in >> Logback and be done with it. >> >> There are at least three of us opposed to using a new logging framework, > logging *implementation*, please, not framework: the framework is slf4j-api, > on which our code will have much dependency. The logging implementation is > far > less invasive choice (even if not completely null). > >> but I don't think there is anyone against using Logback. > why this provocation? (should I say lack of respect for others opinion?) > Provocation? How do you see after spending a lot of time trying to get SLF4J Simple work, patching it repeatedly, and then coming to the conclusion that SLF4J Simple will is not really sufficient as provocation? In addition to that there is a sentiment at least amongst three of use that picking a new logging implementation isn't sensible and more people that showed a preference for Logback if an implementation had to be chosen. Therefore the only options to move forward are to continue patching SLF4J Simple or use Logback. That's at least the sentiment of anyone who's expressed an opinion. >> I honestly don't think >> there is any rational argument for not using Logback, so after doing all >> the SLF4J work and making a best effort to use SLF4J Simple I think it's >> pointless to pursue that path any longer and put in Logback. > we'll need to wait for 3.1.1 and a vote to have a chance to stop tension > about > this: whatever choice is done, there will be some devs unhappy who will have > to live with it It's December 10th now, I'll just wait until we decide as nothing much is going to happen between now and the new year. I'll help finish the SLF4J isolation and then I'm going to try some concurrency at which point I think I'll be able to rule out SLF4J Simple. Getting the classloader isolation will probably take another day or two, the concurrency tests probably longer and will require some review. It's also not guaranteed the patches I made to SLF4J Simple make sense so those need to be reviewed as well. > > notice I won't be able to reply for the next half day, my intent with this > reply is just to avoid one more re-spin of a feeling that the vote won't > happen and let Olivier once more jump on the case > I just hope I won't have to read a lot of replies to this tonight when I'm > back from work and loose my time carefully reading if anything new or > interesting is written No vote is going to happen so there's no rush. > > Regards, > > Hervé > >> On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arnaud Héritier <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm a little bit lost too. >>> Thus for now in 3.1.0 we didn't want to provide a new logging impl fwk >>> (for >>> many - good - reasons) but the last bug discovered by Kristian can be >>> solved only >>> * by having a fix from slf4j (but it isn't sure that the patch makes sense >>> - to be validated by Ceki) >>> * or by using a more evolved impl like logback (or log4j ...). >>> I think that everyone's will prefer the first solution if possible but if >>> we cannot we'll have the question to select the impl. >>> Do we need to vote ? Is there really a question logback vs log4j(2) ? >>> Like I said in another thread I'll understand if the project decide to >>> choose log4j2 even if it is young because we want to support another ASF >>> initiative (And I'm sure we won't have to regret it, and we'll have a >>> really good support from its team) but in a general case I would prefer to >>> choose logback which is today the reference logging framework (I that case >>> we need to have a PMC vote to accept an external component under EPL >>> license http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies ?). >>> >>> What do we need (for 3.1.0) ? What do we do ? >>> >>> Arnaud >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to add my >>>> perspective on this topic. >>>> >>>> For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of the more >>>> advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already also >>>> stated. >>>> Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while we >>>> investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then select >>>> an >>>> implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple can't >>>> do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option >>>> unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies? I'll >>>> leave that to others working with that to decide. >>>> >>>> But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my choice >>>> would >>>> be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being a past >>>> experience where I developed an audit logging solution based on logback, >>>> where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies when it came >>>> to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with this fixed >>>> though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when there is >>>> proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that he will >>>> help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working with log4j2 >>>> will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I know >>>> Ceki's. >>>> >>>> But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would be so much >>>> better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release and >>>> do >>>> a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although using >>>> slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching impl >>>> later >>>> on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some people do >>>> solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar plugin >>>> for >>>> example). >>>> >>>> /Anders >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly < >>>> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >>>>>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: >>>>>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2. >>>>>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy. >>>>>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it. >>>>>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in case of any >>>>>>> issue we could have. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is actually >>>>>> going, but I'm firmly opposed >>>>>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>>> Kristian >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> <javascript:;> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. >> >> -- Benjamin Franklin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. -- Unknown
