I would add one more point. Logback has roughly benevolent dictator governance, Log4j is Apache. During the recent kerfuffle, Apache responded sooner because it only took one of n people to start responding. Logback's response for quite some time was "that's an Apache problem" even though they had very similar vulnerability through JNDI. The root cause of the vulnerability (in my opinion) was feature-itis but the BDFL model caused logback to lose considerable time before responding effectively.
My own slightly-more-than-joking preference is to find the logging framework with the fewest features and options. I seriously doubt if the speed differences can be measured in a realistic situation and the risk of feature creep is significant. On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:17 AM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for all the feedback and concerns folks. I’m trying organize them > in bullet points. Order is random, not importance. > > 1) Licence. I’m not familiar with dual-licensing either. Maybe we need > somebody with better Apache knowledge around this or ask the legal team, > I’m not sure. Hope this won’t be a blocker for logback. > > 2) Compatibility with other projects. "It has taken a long time, but it > appears that the wider big data > ecosystem is coming around to Log4J 2.” > > The way I see it and to be honest I'm almost always a “go-with-the-flow” > guy especially when comes to Hadoop, but the recent fiasco is a good > example of how bad idea it could be sometimes. Thanks Lord that ZooKeeper > still hasn’t moved to lo4j2 yet which saved me tons of working hours in my > employer. > > 3) Functionality of log4j2. In a nutshell: YAGNI. You don’t need to > implement or prepare for something which you don’t need _at the moment_. > That was my main intention of moving towards logback. Simple, fast, enough. > > 4) Performance. slf4j+logback outperforms basically everything: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11359187/why-not-use-java-util-logging > I haven’t verified it myself, so this might not be rock solid advantage. > Based on the article and given the amount of work needed to replace the > logging facade SLF4j with something else like j.u.l. is not the train I > originally wanted to jump on. > > So, I believe the question in this topic is “which default SLF4j logging > implementation shall ZK ship by default?” > > 5) Backward compatibility. That’s something I still need to work on. > Logback config translator is pretty neat: > https://logback.qos.ch/translator/ so, upgrading existing config files > should not be a problem. Additionally we keep log4j1 still an option as the > backend. > > Apologies I didn’t have time to take a look at slf4j-simple for our tests > yet, but looks like this option has already got support from multiple folks > in the community, so worth a shot. > > Thanks > > Andor > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022. Jan 7., at 21:18, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:10 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> 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). > >> > >> > > That is a really good point Ted, one that came to mind a couple weeks ago > > but I never circled back on - why are we not using util.logging by > default? > > Assuming end users can configure (slf4j) whatever they want. Perhaps we > > could even ship "samples" for the various options if there is interest... > > > > Regards, > > > > Patrick > > > > > >> 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. > >
