On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Wayne Cannon wrote:
In a different thread, Steve Souza said that log4j development had stagnated (my words, not his, re version 1.3). Is this true? If this is true, is it simply because log4j is a mature product and is a good product needing little ongoing development effort of significance, or is there a new/replacement product carrying the de facto logging charter into the future (e.g. compatible with commons- logging)?
Development on log4j 1.3 has effectively ended in preference for working on log4j 2.0 designed for JDK 1.5 and higher and continued support of log4j 1.2 for existing applications and earlier JDK's. log4j 1.3 was stuck in having too many compatibility issues to be just a dot release but not a radical enough change to address some long standing issues. Many months of work were done to improve the compatibility between log4j 1.3 and log4j 1.2, but many hard issues still remained. It seemed better to bring features originally designed for log4j 1.3 back so they could be used with deployed log4j 1.2 versions and move on to something for the modern era. Some early experiments for log4j 2.0 are in the sandbox, but it hasn't been built out to a functioning framework yet.
logBACK does position itself as a migration path for log4j users. The development model, design objectives and licenses differ between logBACK and log4j and the resulting products will have different strengths. As a log4j core developer, I feel that I can't become intimately familiar with logBACK code due to its license and the potential repercussions of an accidental code leakage into log4j, so I'm not going to be in a position to give a point by point comparison on logBACK and log4j 1.2 or log4j 2.0.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
