I agree. I'm also one for not coding to the lowest common denominator. That's one reason we're not using a logging facade as I assume with a facade you get only the features that are common across the set of logging frameworks the facade supports.
What I'm suggesting is to come up with a design and architecture which is language/runtime/OS agnostic. While it's easy for me to say that I wouldn't be surprised if it's more difficult to achieve. When it comes to implementation I would assume the features might manifest themselves in different ways across the different languages/runtimes/OS's. For instance, .NET has extension methods and Java doesn't. You might decide to implement some features in .NET using extension methods and in Java you'll have to pick a different way to implement. Configuration might be another area where there are differences among the different runtimes and thus the implementation might be a bit different. Maybe there's even a feature that one implementation has that others don't just because there is no way, or no easy enough way to implement. Thanks, Nick ________________________________ From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:04 AM To: Log4J Users List Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET Maybe I am nitpicking, but Log4j is also (mostly) agnostic to what language you run on the JVM (Java, Scala, Groovy, Clojure, etc). I guess it would be nice to have similar logging framework for other runtimes (such as .Net). However, I would not like to constrain Log4j to only use features available on both JVM and .Net. On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > I guess platform is vague. Maybe I should have said language agnostic. > It would be nice to have a single logging architecture/design run on C/C++, > .NET, Java, etc. Or at least it seems like a nice feature to me. I would > assume there are many enterprises out there that have applications running > on different OS's and languages. If I'm trying to pick a logging framework > to use and I find a popular one which is capable and runs similarly across > the OS's and languages then that's a big plus in my mind. > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > ________________________________ > From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:52 AM > To: Log4J Users List > Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET > > Just to make things clear, Log4j is a logging framework for the JVM > platform, and it is agnostic to the underlying OS. It it well tested on (at > least) both Linux and Windows. > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > > Figured I would send this question out to the log4j side. I have already > > had some email exchanges with the log4net mailing list regarding porting > > log4j2 to .NET. My suggestion was that the apache logging framework be a > > single architecture design which is platform agnostic and then teams > which > > port to the different platforms. It seems log4net was a port of log4j > and > > may be going off in its own direction from that initial port. My > viewpoint > > is that's a bad idea as one of the benefits I saw was that log4net was > > similar to log4j2 and we're looking for logging frameworks for our > > enterprise. We have applications on both Windows/.NET and Linux/Java so > > having a logging framework for Windows/.NET which is similar to a logging > > framework for Linux/Java was a big plus. > > > > > > While I have no doubt the effort to port log4j2 to .NET is considerable, > > it would be a port and thus I'm not spending time figuring out design and > > algorithms. Would anyone want to venture a guess at what that effort > might > > be? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nick > > > > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > mikael.stal...@magine.com > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > www.magine.com<<http://www.magine.com<> > http://www.magine.com> > [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png]< > http://www.magine.com/> > > TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/> > www.magine.com<http://www.magine.com> > Watch the TV you love, on any device, anywhere in Germany and Sweden and > find out more about our global OTT B2B solutions. Get started today. > > > > 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 software developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal...@magine.com Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com<http://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.
