Based on the timing (mid-November) and the EOL end of this year, is it worth it? I'd say no. But it's up to you -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:48 AM Jonathan Gallimore < [email protected]> wrote: > I make these changes to 9.x and main - is there any objection to making the > change to 8.x as well? > > Thanks > > Jon > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:28 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback, and especially the pointer to the JIRA! > > > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:26 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I am ok with the change. I would just updating the related deps in our > >> webapps. A backing arquillian test would be useful, I guess. > >> > >> While looking into it (related to logging & classloaders), it might be > >> interesting to also have a look on [1]. > >> > >> For TomeEE 10, I would like to first have the owb4 branch on main, > >> though (just waiting for johnzon 2.0.0). > >> > >> Gruß > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-4242 > >> > >> > >> > >> Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 15:19 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore: > >> > I'm hoping the URLClassLoaderFirst change would mean that the slf4j- > >> > api > >> > 1.7.x could keep working for you. I'd be happy to add an Arquillian > >> > test to > >> > check that as part of a PR for the change. Does that sound ok? > >> > > >> > The upstream dependencies are not pulling in logback. > >> > > >> > If someone wanted to use logback with SLF4J, in a Jakarta EE version > >> > of > >> > TomEE, by bundling both slf4j-api and logback in their application, > >> > they'd > >> > have to use slf4j-api 2.x (because the Jakarta EE version of logback > >> > requires that API level). > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Jon > >> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:06 PM Jonathan S. Fisher > >> > <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > While we use slf4j-api 1.7.x, I'm totally ok with a 2.x upgrade, > >> > > although it'd be best if the dependency wasn't seen by the apps > >> > > somehow. I know that's a lot of classloader acrobatics :) > >> > > > >> > > Just to clarify though, the upstream dependencies are or are not > >> > > including logback? If they are including logback, that transitive > >> > > dependency ought to be blocked... it's up to the final developer to > >> > > decide which binding implementation to use. Including a binding > >> > > (over > >> > > the default sysout binding) would likely cause problems for users. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:58 AM Jonathan Gallimore > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi All > >> > > > > >> > > > There's a couple of suggestions I'd like to run past the group to > >> > > > see if > >> > > > there's any thoughts / potential issues. > >> > > > > >> > > > The first is: updating to SLF4J 2.x API and JUL implementation > >> > > > (specifically 2.0.9) in TomEE. There's a couple of rationale > >> > > > here: > >> > > > > >> > > > - The 1.x branch of SLF4J is no longer maintained > >> > > > - At least one of the bindings (Logback) requires a SLF4J 2.x API > >> > > > for > >> > > > Jakarta EE support > >> > > > > >> > > > Secondly, thanks to this bit of code in the class loader: > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/main/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/util/classloader/URLClassLoaderFirst.java#L600-L619 > >> > > , > >> > > > it is possible for a webapp to include its own SLF4J API and > >> > > > binding in > >> > > its > >> > > > WEB-INF/lib to use its own logging config. With SLF4J 2.x, > >> > > > org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class is not included with the > >> > > > binders, > >> > > > nor is it called, so shouldSkipSlf4j() returns true, even when > >> > > > SLF4J and > >> > > a > >> > > > binder is present in the web app. Simply removing this method, > >> > > > and the > >> > > > single place it is called seems to enable the web app to do its > >> > > > own > >> > > logging > >> > > > with its own binder. > >> > > > > >> > > > I've run a TCK build with both of these changes present, and it > >> > > > looks ok. > >> > > > Does anyone have any feedback with respect to these proposals? Is > >> > > > anyone > >> > > > out there using SLF4J in their applications with these versions > >> > > > of TomEE > >> > > > who would be impacted? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > Jon > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Jonathan | [email protected] > >> > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it > >> > > as > >> > > half full. > >> > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it > >> > > needs to > >> > > be. > >> > > > >> > >> >
