On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where was the GitHub fork when it was EOL'd? Or when development > effectively stopped 4 years ago? > Maybe the hack provided in this thread will be enough for most folks. Gary > > On 14 July 2016 at 12:12, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And get ready for a GitHub fork... >> >> Gary >> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree. We announced that Log4j 1.2 is end of life. We have a >>> replacement that is better than Log4j 1.2 in pretty much every way. >>> >>> In my opinion we should >>> a) make sure Log4j 2 is ready for Java 9 >>> b) start announcing that Log4j 1.2 will not work with Java 9 so people >>> can start planning their migration >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> That was exactly what my “mixed emotions” were about. >>>> >>>> Also, I think we are going to have a fair amount of work to really >>>> support Java 9. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Any Log4j 1 release is likely to open the floodgates of requests to fix >>>> any outstanding "simple" (or complex) bugs. >>>> >>>> Keep in mind that Java 9 is not official yet, so we could be opening >>>> ourselves to a series of Java 9 EA compatible releases as Java 9 with and >>>> without Jigsaw (these are still separate builds IIRC) gets developed. >>>> >>>> Tracking Java 9 EAs with Log4j 2 is likely to be enough work as it >>>> is... if we do want to do that now... >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Strategically I don't see why doing another 1.2 release would be a >>>>> good idea. >>>>> If people can upgrade to Java 9 with all the regression testing that >>>>> implies, then I see no reason they would not also upgrade to Log4j 2... >>>>> Naturally Log4j 2 needs to be in good shape for Java 9 and we would >>>>> support users who did customizations to Log4j 1.2. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Ralph Goers < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That would rule out building on a Mac. I’d have to try it from a >>>>>> Linux VM. I think Gary might have built Log4j 1 in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt, I guess you need JDK 1.4.2 on your machine to have artifact >>>>>> "sun.jdk:tools:jar:1.4.2". >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you even build log4j 1.2? I get this error when I build from >>>>>>> trunk: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal >>>>>>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run >>>>>>> (javadoc.resources) on >>>>>>> project log4j: Execution javadoc.resources of goal >>>>>>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2:run failed: Plugin >>>>>>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.2 or one of its >>>>>>> dependencies >>>>>>> could not be resolved: Could not find artifact sun.jdk:tools:jar:1.4.2 >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> specified path >>>>>>> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_66.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/../Classes/classes.jar >>>>>>> -> [Help 1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 July 2016 at 10:47, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would we want to do that? We need to make sure that Log4j 2 >>>>>>>> works well with Java 9, but otherwise I think this is an excellent >>>>>>>> opportunity for users to upgrade to Log4j 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remko >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Paul Benedict < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to this poster, it appears 1.x is not compatible with >>>>>>>>> JDK 9: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008654.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I told them I would notify our development community. So here's >>>>>>>>> the notification. :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given how widely used 1.x is still, what do you guys think of one >>>>>>>>> more 1.x release? Usually I would never entertain the suggestion, but >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> may be the one time the justification makes sense. For those who >>>>>>>>> still use >>>>>>>>> 1.x and have no time to upgrade to 2.x, I can't think of a better way >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> support the user community than fix this issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PS: Inside the post is a link to the supposed patch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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
