On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The biggest complaints we seem to be getting are about the effort in > transitioning from Log4j 1.x to 2. To be fair, they would have the same > amount of effort to transition to anything. I believe someone created a > tool to help convert Log4j 1.x configuration to Log4j 2 format. At the > very least we should link to that. If possible, we should consider > incorporating it into our web site. > > What has been encouraging to me is the activity on Stack Overflow. As of > right now I get 3,162 Log4j 2 questions vs 12,425 SLF4J questions and 6,581 > Logback questions. Both SLF4J and Logback have been around far longer. I > think our participation there has really helped. > > OTOH, the discussion on the Commons Dev list was rather disappointing. > It bugs me when bloggers still write about Log4j-1.2, like this recent one: http://goo.gl/fb/MD4Pe5 I've added a constructive comment (currently still under moderation) in the hope he'll focus future efforts on Log4j 2... > Ralph > > > On Jun 13, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','remko.po...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > In spite of the fact that Log4j 2 has a very compelling story in terms of > feature set and performance, I get the impression that adoption is quite > slow. I could be wrong, but how many open source projects use Log4j 2? Or > even how many Apache projects? > > I propose we try to generate some ideas about what we can do to increase > our uptake. Some things I've been thinking about: > > * Rewrite the Wikipedia page on Log4j > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log4j>. It's mostly about Log4j 1.2 and > mentions Log4j 2 at the bottom in a footnote. That needs to be the other > way around in my opinion. The Wikipedia Java logging framework > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_logging_framework> page is even worse. > * The Apache Logging site <https://logging.apache.org/> has no explicit > mention that Log4j 1 is EOL. > * Only the top page on the Log4j 1 site > <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/> mentions that the project is EOL, > but it does so in two modest sentences that don't visually stick out and > are easily ignored. At the very least the download page needs a mention of > the EOL and a link to the Log4j 2 project, but it may be good to have a > notification on every page. > * Can we get other people involved in evangelizing log4j 2? It would be > great if we can make more people enthusiastic so they write blog posts or > tutorials etc about Log4j 2. > * How can we incentivise people to convert their project to Log4j 2? Maybe > start a page on Projects Using Log4j 2 and mention people who did the > conversion by name? Or some other way? > > Thoughts? > > Remko > > >
