What are contemplating changing in log4j-api?

Ralph


On Jan 3, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what policy WRT binary and source compatibility we have in log4j 
> 1 and 2. Over in Commons, if you break BC, in general, that means a package 
> name change and a Maven name change, for example from o.a.commons.lang to 
> lang3. This is using the Clirr report to check for errors. There are 
> exceptions of course, usually if a public API changes but it is considered 
> part of the implementation and not what a call site should use.
> 
> I forgot to mention, in Log4j, we have a more stringent requirement since 
> there are users of log4j and implementors of appenders. So some of the log4j 
> guts are necessarily public to allow Appender implementations to be written. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to go through the existing bugs and find ones we feel 
> are critical and squash them before a final 2.0.
> 
> Gary's right in the sense that adoption as a non beta means we will feel 
> resistance to significant changes.
> 
> Maybe we should make it clear that Api changes may appear in 2.1 but not 
> 2.0.x?
> 
> On Jan 2, 2014 7:23 PM, "Gary Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, Gary, I don't understand the hesitation.
> We started talking about a 2.0 GA release six months ago. Surely that should 
> have been enough time to familiarize yourself with the APIs and raise any 
> concerns.
> 
> I understand that the 2.0 release is a big step but I also agree with 
> Christian that if unforeseen issues come up we can address them in upcoming 
> releases. (And if we find we've made a terrible mistake and need an API 
> change, then so be it...)
> 
> How about everyone marks outstanding Jira tickets that they really want to 
> address before the 2.0 release (with the issue target version), and release 
> the 2.0 GA when these are all fixed?
> 
> Hey, it's a volunteer community process, and we all have our opinions ;) I 
> just stated mine is all. 
> 
> Feel free to call a vote when you see fit. It's all good.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
> What tweaks do you have in mind? API changes?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Why the caution?
> 
> We can have a 3.0, a 2.1 and son on.
> 
> Nobody expects we should stick forever with a version.
> On the other hand, we were releasing in beta for ages now.
> 
> What are the reasons you don't want a 2.0 stable?
> 
> You've got it backwards ;) 
> 
> I do want a stable 2.0. I, personally, am not 100% familiar with 100% of the 
> API and I am not sure that the API is stable. There are a LOT of _public_ 
> APIs in Log4J. Once 2.0 is out, these are set in stone.
> 
> There are also a couple of tweaks I'd like to do. People are using log4j now 
> in beta form. Another beta/rc will not hurt. But once 2.0 is out, we are set.
> 
> Gary
>  
> 
> 
> On 2 Jan 2014, at 14:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
> 
> Make it RC or another beta IMO. Once 2.0 is out you cannot unhinged that 
> bell. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]>
> Date:01/02/2014  02:46  (GMT-05:00)
> To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Next release of 2.0
> 
> I am trying to find a bit more time to work on Log4j again.  I see quite a 
> few issues that I would like to address and think I will need about 2 weeks 
> to complete them so I am tentatively targeting the middle of the month for 
> the next release.   The question in my mind is whether the next release 
> should be 2.0-RC1 or just 2.0.
> 
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Reply via email to