Perhaps the Zookeeper project should split out a client library module (which should only depend on SLF4J-API).
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > If you will note, Christian put in a plug for Log4j 2 quite some time ago > in that Jira issue. From reading the issue it seems to me that Zookeeper > must be using some convoluted processes in their build with all the > problems they had getting patches to apply. Also, they ship an executable > binary, which makes it difficult to not include a logging implementation. > Flume also does this - which reminds me to open an issue with them. > > Ralph > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:40 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> > wrote: > > It's OK if a library uses SLF4J properly. However, some libraries (even > Apache ones) uses SLF4J improperly by having a mandatory dependency on a > specific implementation (logj4 1 or logback) in their project. Such as > Zookeeper: > > > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.4.6/zookeeper-3.4.6.pom > > This is very unfortunately since Zookeeper is a dependency for quite a lot > of other projects, and causes quite a lot of headache if you want to use > Log4j 2 (you have to exclude dependencies). There is an old JIRA ticket for > it, but it has not been prioritized: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1371 > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> Gary, >> >> Do you have something in mind? While not hard, it is a fair amount of >> work for an application to switch to a different logging API. Granted, it >> is mostly just changing the call to get a Logger. But most applications >> should also take advantage of the new parameter syntax as well. >> >> What was your experience with projects upgrading to commons lang3 vs >> commons lang? I know quite a few people are still using commons httpclient >> vs the new version, and that has been around a lot longer than Log4j 2. >> What I really hope is that we stopped projects from switching from log4j 1 >> to logback, although I am aware that many projects are using slf4j instead >> and letting their customers choose. Frankly, if I hadn’t found limitations >> (such as the ability to use Messages) in SLF4J I would have used that as >> the API for Log4j 2 (I am quite happy we didn’t). >> >> Ralph >> >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Something to think about after we get 2.4 out the door... >> >> Do you think it appropriate for us to do some kind of outreach to other >> Apache projects and say "hey, about about use log4j 2?" >> >> Gary >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior backend developer > > *Magine TV* > mikael.stal...@magine.com > Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > > -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior backend developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal...@magine.com Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
