I should also mention that there is more than 1 artifact. There currently is log4j12-api, log4j2-api, logj42-core, log4j2-jcl, slf4j-impl, logj42-flume-og and log4j2-flume-ng.
Ralph On Apr 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Thanks for looking at this. > > The choices I considered were > > 1) > <groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId> > <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId> > <version>1.x<//version> > > 2) > <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId> > <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId> > <version>1.x</version> > > 3) > <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId> > <artifactId>log4j</groupId> > <version>2.x</version> > > I preferred 1 but am OK with 2. I didn't like 3 simply because the doc was > talking about Log4j 2.0 and I quickly realized we would have a 2.1 and then > the doc would be strange. So I shortened it to Log4j 2 and then thought it > looked better as log4j2. It just seemed more natural to start numbering that > at 1.0. > > Also, 2.0 isn't binary compatible with 1.x (except for the log4j 1.x adapter > - which can't be 100% compatible either), but that isn't unusual in a major > release change. > > Ralph > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I saw: >> https://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/download.html >> >> The release name is for example: >> apache-log4j2-1.0-alpha1.tar.gz >> >> Isn't this a little bit confusing? >> >> I was under the impression it should be like this: >> >> <artifactId>log4j</artifactId> >> <version>2.0-alpha1-SNAPSHOT</version> >> >> Thus the name is log4j 2.0 and not log4j2 1.0. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers >> Christian >> >> -- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> https://www.timeandbill.de >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
