Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Marco Di Sabatino Di Diodoro 
+1

Marco

-- 
Dott. Marco Di Sabatino Di Diodoro
Tel. +39 3939065570

Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +39 0859116307 / FAX +39 085973
http://www.tirasa.net

Apache Syncope PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~mdisabatino/

Il giorno 22/lug/2013, alle ore 14:52, Fabio Martelli 
 ha scritto:

> +1
> F.
> 
> Il 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>> Hi all,
>> I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I was 
>> thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2 (with 
>> new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
>> I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be 
>> minimal.
>> 
>> Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency 
>> level.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc
>> 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Fabio Martelli 

+1
F.

Il 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:

Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and 
I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to 
log4j 2 (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes 
would be minimal.


Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF 
dependency level.


WDYT?

[1] 
http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh 
+1.

Colm.


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
ilgro...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
> was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
> (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
> I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
> minimal.
>
> Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
> level.
>
> WDYT?
>
> [1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-**
> 20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/
>
>


-- 
Colm O hEigeartaigh

Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Francesco Chicchiriccò 

On 22/07/2013 14:29, Oliver Wulff wrote:

I assume there are no dependencies within the code which would allow the users 
to still give the option to use logback?


There are also direct references in the source code to Logback internal 
classes (the LoggerController, for example) since the SLF4J APIs do not 
expose methods for programmatically changing appender's level.


I don't see very meaningful for end users to keep with logback, Syncope 
is not a general purpose framework for which it can make sense to choice 
that.



log4j 2 is still in beta. Do we know when it should be released?


Soon, as far as they claim (they've already reach beta 8!), and anyway 
before than 1.2.0 sees the light.


Regards.



From: cschneider...@gmail.com [cschneider...@gmail.com] on behalf of Christian 
Schneider [ch...@die-schneider.net]
Sent: 22 July 2013 13:30
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log framework and also works great in OSGi.

Christian


2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò 


Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
(with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
minimal.

Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
level.

WDYT?

[1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-**
20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc<http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc>


--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/

RE: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Oliver Wulff 
I assume there are no dependencies within the code which would allow the users 
to still give the option to use logback?
log4j 2 is still in beta. Do we know when it should be released?

Just my two cents...

Thanks
Oli


From: cschneider...@gmail.com [cschneider...@gmail.com] on behalf of Christian 
Schneider [ch...@die-schneider.net]
Sent: 22 July 2013 13:30
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log framework and also works great in OSGi.

Christian


2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò 

> Hi all,
> I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
> was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
> (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
> I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
> minimal.
>
> Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
> level.
>
> WDYT?
>
> [1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-**
> 20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc<http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc>
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/<http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/>
>
>


--
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Christian Schneider 
+1 For switching to log4j.
I would also keep the slf4j layer. This minimizes direct dependencies on
the log framework and also works great in OSGi.

Christian


2013/7/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò 

> Hi all,
> I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I
> was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2
> (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
> I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
> minimal.
>
> Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
> level.
>
> WDYT?
>
> [1] http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-**2-performance-close-to-insane-**
> 20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/
>
>


-- 
-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

RE: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Jan Bernhardt 
Excellent idea!

> -Original Message-
> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org]
> Sent: Montag, 22. Juli 2013 12:42
> To: dev@syncope.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
> 
> Hi all,
> I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and I was
> thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to log4j 2 (with new
> AsyncLoggers, of course!).
> I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes would be
> minimal.
> 
> Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF dependency
> level.
> 
> WDYT?

+1

> 
> [1]
> http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-
> 20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc
> 
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
> 
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread andrea patricelli 

Il 22/07/2013 12:50, Massimiliano Perrone ha scritto:

On 22/07/2013 12:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] 
and I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback 
to log4j 2 (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes 
would be minimal.


Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF 
dependency level.


Ops, I was meaning "...we will also *decrease* our non-ASF dependency 
level".



WDYT?


+1



[1] 
http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc






+1

--
Dott. Andrea Patricelli
Tel +393204524292

Trainee @ Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +390859116307 / FAX +39 085973
http://www.tirasa.net

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Massimiliano Perrone 

On 22/07/2013 12:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

On 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and 
I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to 
log4j 2 (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes 
would be minimal.


Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF 
dependency level.


Ops, I was meaning "...we will also *decrease* our non-ASF dependency 
level".



WDYT?


+1



[1] 
http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc





--
Massimiliano Perrone
Tel +39 393 9121310

Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +39 0859116307 / FAX +39 085973
http://www.tirasa.net

Apache Syncope PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~massi/

"L'apprendere molte cose non insegna l'intelligenza"
(Eraclito)

Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2

2013-07-22 Thread Francesco Chicchiriccò 

On 22/07/2013 12:41, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

Hi all,
I have recently read a stunning post from Christian Grobmeier [1] and 
I was thinking why not to switch the trunk (1.2.0) from logback to 
log4j 2 (with new AsyncLoggers, of course!).
I was also thinking to keep the SLF4J layer, so that code changes 
would be minimal.


Besides performance benefit, we will also increase our non-ASF 
dependency level.


Ops, I was meaning "...we will also *decrease* our non-ASF dependency 
level".



WDYT?

[1] 
http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html#.Ue0KLRe9hyc


--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/