Every programming language has its own idioms, and that even goes for all the various JVM languages as demonstrated by the log4j-scala API. Unless you mean more of an architectural thing with a similar config format, then that might be more possible, but even that relies on a language being mostly OOP or mostly procedural or mostly functional or some other exotic thing.
On 18 October 2016 at 09:23, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > 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. > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
