I will try out Ceki's suggestion early next week and report back. On Dec 24, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yep if simple is back on the table commit that and let the fight be > resolved later. > > This logback vs log4j2 debate seems fractious to try and resolve right now > so sticking to your original plan of the *non-choice* that is simple will > allow moving forward (though with some cribbing and moaning from the "we > want coloured logging" brigade) > > ;-) > > On Monday, 24 December 2012, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]<javascript:;>> >> wrote: >>> I'm going to push this along and I agree with Stephen insofar as if you >> prefer an implementation then there should be a branch to support that >> preference. Thus far I have not seen anything aside from Stephen's efforts >> which are a PoC so the choice is between SLF4J Simple, Logback and Log4J2. >> >> You're original plan was to get a release out with Simple and fight >> later. That would be fine with me. >> >> Based on prior discussions and votes, I don't see anyone vetoing that >> commit or a vote failing to pass. I'm not sure what I think would >> happen if you just committed logback or log4j at this point; they seem >> much of a muchness to me. You prefer logback, but log4j floats certain >> boats. >> >> >>> >>> If we want to put aside the debate, Ceki has figured out a way for use >> SLF4J Simple by resetting the streams and logging level. Which I can try if >> we want to go down that path. I didn't have to do any work in SLF4J myself >> so I'm fine with this approach. >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly < >> [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]<javascript:;>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]<javascript:;> >>> : >>>>>> Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some >> code >>>>> to >>>>>> make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and >>>>> committing >>>>>> it, those branches are dead... as are those choices. >>>>>> >>>>>> IF YOU WANT TO SPONSOR ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES THEN WRITE THE DAMN CODE >> TO >>>>>> GET THEM WALKING AGAIN >>>>>> >>>>>> That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table... >>>>>> >>>>>> JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs >>>>>> I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating >>>>> for >>>>>> log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes >> the >>>>>> ITs. >>>>> branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this >>>>> jenkins job >>>>> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/core-integration-testing-maven-3-jdk-1.6-log4j2/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will >> now >>>> rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up >>>> from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent >> third >>>>>> party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration >> tests >>>>> to >>>>>> pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either >> has a >>>>>> branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are >> needing >>>>>> to give better proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing >> against >>>>>> log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one of >> the >>>>>> other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing some >>>>>> code...) >>>>> My 0.02 euros. >>>>> Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue. >>>>> And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports >>>>> from folks on the other thread) >>>>> I read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html (agree >>>>> benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if >>>>> runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care. >>>>> Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good >>>>> license for our Maven. >>>>> >>>> >>>> These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I >> have >>>> not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options >> through >>>> the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical >>>> debates. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're >> talking about. >>> >>> -- John von Neumann >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------- A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he is responsible for the quality of the whole -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
