I believe this is sufficient provided that we agree when any one attempts to select the logging framework that there is a discussion.
As I see it I have been blocked as the person doing the work from selecting the implementation I would like because of a rule against EPL dependencies which was created for something not related to this. That said I understand why it was originally done. What I don't want to see if a month from now try someone trying inject something that isn't Logback without a discussion because I have a lot to say on the matter. So provided there is agreement that if we're choosing SLF4J Simple we just leave it there for at least 6 months because the discussion will be between Logback and Log4J2 and 1) That's at least how long it's going to take for Log4J2 to get to any level of maturity and we can see how it's being adopted and 2) I don't really want to talk about logging for a while. If we pick SLF4J Simple we stick with it for a while. I will express my opinion again that I think Logback is the right choice right now, but I'm fine with the agreed upon selection by the group to use SLF4J Simple provided this isn't going to be contended for the next 6 months. If anyone has any intention of changing the implementation before then we should just stop and have the discussion now. I also think the PMC should remove the requirement to vote in the use of EPL licensed dependencies, there's nothing wrong with the EPL being used with the ASL. On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:47 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > If SLF4J Simple is now a viable option again, i.e. the problems reported > with concurrency and embedding has been sorted out, then that is the > obvious choice to me. > > On 2012-12-24 15:12, Jason van Zyl 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. >> >> 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]> wrote: >> >>> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------- Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay. -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
