Gary, dependencies on things used only during the build, like autoconf, are ok. If the dependency is not part of the runtime there should be now problem. I am pretty sure there is a Jira or an FAQ on this.
Sent from my iPhone > On May 25, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > Over in Commons VFS we are not adding a pom dep to a jar because it's license > is not ASF compatible, which is ASF policy from what I understand and how it > has been explained on the ML. Ii sounds like the same problem here. > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ralph Goers > Date:05/25/2014 02:26 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: JMH for log4j microbenchmarks > > This is a very good idea. You really don't have a lot to worry about. ASF > projects can use GPL tools to build or do things like you are suggesting. > However, we can't ship things that are under the GPL and should not commit > them to svn. From what you are describing I don't think we would be doing > that. > > The log4j-dist module controls what is included in the release. As I recall > it is already excluding some things so this be easy to do. However, the > release zips the whole source tree, so as long as there is nothing GPL there > we are good. > > Fwiw, my surgery is done. I am at home and feeling ok, under the > circumstances. I can only see from one eye right now so please excuse > mistakes. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On May 24, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've been using JMH (http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jmh/ ) for >> performance tests recently and I'm very impressed. JMH is developed by the >> Oracle java performance team and used internally by Oracle to performance >> tune the JVM and java core libraries. >> >> I would like to use JMH to start building a suite of performance tests for >> log4j2. I would like everyone's thoughts. First, do you like this idea at >> all? >> >> Also, there is one legal and one technical aspect that I would like >> everyone's feedback on. >> >> A potential legal problem is that JMH is made available under GNU GPL v2 >> with the Classpath Exception, and our Apache License v2 is not compatible >> with GPL v2 (see http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL ). >> >> To solve this, I want to avoid distributing JMH or our executable >> microbenchmarks (which would have the JMH classes) with our log4j >> artifacts. I just want our team (and whoever checks out the log4j source) to >> be able to use JMH to genyerate and run benchmarks when they want to. >> >> I'm not a lawyer though. Does anyone have experience with this kind of >> question? >> >> The technical aspect: >> I propose adding a log4j-perf module. This is where our performance test >> code would live. JMH microbenchmarks are very simple java classes with >> org.openjdk.jmh annotations. During the build, JMH generates code and that >> generated code, together with all dependencies are zipped up in a large >> uber-jar with the maven Shade plugin. You can then use java -jar >> microbenchmarks.jar to run performance tests. >> >> To ensure that the log4j-perf artifacts are not included in the log4j2 >> distribution, we could simply leave out the "<module>log4j-perf</module>" >> line from log4j2/pom.xml. The drawback is that you'd need to manually add >> that line and build again if you want to execute microbenchmarks to test >> something that only exists in your workspace. Is there a better way, to >> somehow include the log4j-perf module in the build, but exclude its >> artifacts from the log4j2 distribution? >> >>
