http://markmail.org/message/mpgn4yshnt2qmdui
2012/12/10 Jason van Zyl <[email protected]>: > Not sure what's happening but: > > http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies.html > > is not there. > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]>: >>> 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?) >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> I have already explained my opinion. >> Folks think log4j2 is "immature" and/or don't have a community of >> various people. >> >> Furthermore it looks it's not anymore possible to use "immature" >> libraries in core (whereas it has been done for more important part: >> sisu or aether). >> >> But now that's not anymore possible... >> Well things evolve and POV can change that's the life.... >> >> BTW due to our policy [1] and if I correctly read license here [2] a >> vote is mandatory. (and don't ask me to start this vote :-) ). >> >> Cheers >> -- >> Olivier >> [1] http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies >> [2] http://logback.qos.ch/license.html >> >>> 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] >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Olivier Lamy >> Talend: http://coders.talend.com >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 know what we are, but know not what we may be. > > -- Shakespeare > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
