I have been watching the private and public mailing lists for Apache Logging as part of $dayjob as well.
I read the mood there differently. The most recent comment I remember was a confirmation that "no bugfixes or security patches are planned for log4j1". Log4j2 really is much larger than necessary. This is, in my opinion, the root cause of the recent farago. But having a cutaway by using slf4j is a very reasonable position to take there. Customers can use log4j2 if they want to or opt for simpler systems. Our default can be as simple as we like (even just util.logging). On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:57 AM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > ... > > I also see that there is interest (upstream/apache I mean) in > resurrecting log4j1 - imo that could also be a good path for us. > > >
