Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
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
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
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 ilgro...@apache.org 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#.Ue0KLRe9hychttp://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.dehttps://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de Open Source Architect http://www.talend.comhttps://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace logback with log4j 2
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 ilgro...@apache.org 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#.Ue0KLRe9hychttp://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/
