On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's all reasonable. I will take silence from the rest as tacit > agreement. > +1 to spoil the tacit silence. > > On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jason > > > > From what I have gathered from these discussions, we have a majority of > > people that want to stick with SLF4J Simple for the 3.1.0 release, if > > all the quirks are ironed out. Judging by Hervé's recent commits this is > > almost done, except for the class loading isolation in MNG-5406. > > > > I think having the 3.1.0 release sit with SLF4J Simple for 6 months is a > > good idea. That will give it more time in the field, and we can fix any > > edge cases that might turn up. At the same time it will give us a > > necessary breather from discussing logging. > > > > Having a discussion before selecting some other logging implementation > > is a must as I see it. > > > > As for the licensing "issue", I don't see that as a problem at all. It > > is just an extra hoop that we have to jump through, if we choose an EPL > > licensed logging implementation. If we in 6 months time have a majority > > in favor of an EPL licensed logging, then the vote to add that > > dependency will pass. > > > > Thanks for working on this, and for taking things slow so that everyone > > that wants to get involved is given the opportunity to do so. > > > > > > On 2013-01-06 17:31, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------- > > The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in > moral philosophy; that is, > the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. > > -- John Kenneth Galbraith > > > > > >
