In the latest stuff in my branch, the biggest change in api is StatusConsoleListener moved to -core On Jul 14, 2014 1:23 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> StatusLogger is public in the sense that user written components will use > it. But all we really expose to components there is the > StatusLogger.getLogger() and the Logger interface. The other public methods > there are for JMX and the configuration to access the status data. Nothing > else under the status package is really public. > > I haven’t looked at Bruce’s changes yet but I can’t imagine how they would > result in API breakage. > > Ralph > > > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we break binary compatibility then we should change the package name. > This is to avoid well know jar hell issues. What we need to decide is which > APIs are really public. For example in Commons, all public APIs are part of > the binary compatibility agreement we've made. We now have lang3, pool2, > dbcp2, for example. Looking ahead to not breaking binary compatibility is > why I think we need to be sure we agree now on what the public API is. > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Remko Popma > Date:07/14/2014 12:43 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: Next release > > Bruce, I've done an initial review of the LOG4J2-609 branch and posted > some comments in the Jira. > > Gary, I'm not in principle against changes to the API module in post-2.0 > releases. Changes need to have enough merit to justify them, but if they > do, then making these changes before or after 2.0 doesn't matter that much > to me. We've been in beta so long that I'm sure we have quite a few users > already, so to me we are live already. > > I do appreciate you want it to be as close to perfect as we can make it. > But I also agree with the others that releasing a GA version now won't > prevent us from making further improvements. > > By the way, when I told some people at work that we're close to the 2.0 > release, their first impression was: "finally!" :-) > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'll give the VOTE a review of course but I do not see the harm in >> another RC since we will be setting the API in stone as soon as 2.0 is out. >> We also have only one shot at a first impression. >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Ralph Goers >> Date:07/14/2014 00:35 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Cc: Logging PMC >> Subject: Re: Next release >> >> I guess that means you won't be voting on the current release candidate? >> Pretty much everyone else thinks it is time. If that is the case one of the >> other PMC members will need to fail or the release vote will fail. >> >> For what it is worth, I have no problem with a 2.0.1 or 2.1 in a few >> weeks if desired. I just think we have been stalling long enough. >> >> And I hope we continue to keep fixing things at the same, or better, pace. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 13, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'd be ok with another RC. My ideal scenario is that an RC is released, >> some time goes by without new bug reports and then the next RC becomes a >> release. As things are now, we've fixed plenty since rc2. But hey that's >> just me ;-) >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Bruce Brouwer >> Date:07/13/2014 22:35 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Re: Next release >> >> Ok, the only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger >> writing to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that >> and think it worthy to go into the trunk, I'm pretty much on board with a >> 2.0 release (unless you think a short lived rc3 is in order). >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Ok, this is starting to be simpler, as I'm sure you would all prefer. >>> You can look at the branch LOG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the >>> simplifications that I have made. >>> >>> 1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can decide if they >>> want to do something with a status message in their log method. >>> 2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to write >>> to a file. >>> 3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-api and into log4j-core, >>> where we can probably get away with making more drastic changes to it in >>> the future (so I can fix LOG4J-609) >>> >>> I have to check on the tests and stuff, but in general, I'm pretty happy >>> with how small the impact is and in its ability to make a better solution >>> for LOG4J-609 possible in the future. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This actually makes me wonder why you can configure the status logger >>>> from a configuration file. Shouldn't this just be a system property or >>>> something? >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 July 2014 18:57, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The listener can be removed, but nothing ever does. Right now it can >>>>> never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level checking is >>>>> cached in StatusLogger. If all you do is change the status level of the >>>>> listener it has no effect on the cached value in StatusLogger. It may end >>>>> up having no effect. >>>>> >>>>> This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my fix that I >>>>> have been delinquent with. >>>>> >>>>> I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it makes sense in >>>>> the next hour or two. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Bruce Brouwer >>> about.me/bruce.brouwer >>> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] >>> <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Bruce Brouwer >> about.me/bruce.brouwer >> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] >> <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> >> >> > >
