Re: [log4j] Log4j Java 9 support has been added

🎉🎉🎉 On 21 April 2017 at 01:41, Ralph Goers wrote: > I’ve pushed the support for Java 9 and Stackwalker. Java 9 is now required > to build Log4j in addition to Java 7. > > Ralph > -- Matt Sicker

Re: Roadmap

I also have a feeling that we focus too much on Java 9 and not enough on Java 8. On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > I agree with Ralph that there are many environments that can't upgrade > their Java version but still want to use the nice features Log4j2 offers. > I've also wo

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

Older versions have the same issue. I haven't noticed before since I have already specified a dependency to log4j-api explicitly in build.sbt. So I guess we cannot do anything about it. Let's move on with the release. On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > Oh right, that's a diff

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

We still need two more votes, or one more after I add mine. On 21 April 2017 at 02:50, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > Older versions have the same issue. I haven't noticed before since I have > already specified a dependency to log4j-api explicitly in build.sbt. > > So I guess we cannot do anything abo

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

Added BUILDING.md to logging-log4j-scala repo. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > We still need two more votes, or one more after I add mine. > > On 21 April 2017 at 02:50, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > > > Older versions have the same issue. I haven't noticed before since I have

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

When running RAT check, it fails with: Unapproved licenses: README.md src/site/resources/js/jquery.min.js I got rid of jquery issue by copying the RAT config in pom.xml from the main project. For some reason the RAT check does not complain about README.md in the main repo. I cannot see why.

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

When I try "mvn site:stage-deploy -DstagingSiteURL=file:///$HOME/log4j-scala " it fails with: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin:3.6:stage-deploy (default-cli) on project log4j-scala: Missing site information in the distribution management of the project Apa

Re: [log4j] Log4j Java 9 support has been added

Should the vendor of the Java 7, 8 and 9 toolchains be "sun"? Shouldn't it be "oracle"? On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > 🎉🎉🎉 > > On 21 April 2017 at 01:41, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > I’ve pushed the support for Java 9 and Stackwalker. Java 9 is now > required > > to build Log

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 02:48 schrieben Sie: > A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried > to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but > I've taken another look at it recently and I think that I have got it > wor

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1098) log4j.shutdownHookEnabled=false from log4j-web ignored?

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978571#comment-15978571 ] Robin Jansohn commented on LOG4J2-1098: --- Thanks Kim, your solution/workaround is in

Re: Roadmap

What features in Java 8 do we need to take advantage of that we haven't already? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > > I also have a feeling that we focus too much on Java 9 and not enough on > Java 8. > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Remko Popma

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1851) Move org.apache.logging.log4j.core.net.server package to new module

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978825#comment-15978825 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on LOG4J2-1851: - Commit

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1851) Move org.apache.logging.log4j.core.net.server package to new module

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978826#comment-15978826 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on LOG4J2-1851: - Commit

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1883) Timestamp does not seem to support microseconds level

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1883?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978830#comment-15978830 ] Anthony Maire commented on LOG4J2-1883: --- I add some further thinking about what the

Re: Roadmap

I could think default methods in interfaces to enable evolving SPIs without breaking BC. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > What features in Java 8 do we need to take advantage of that we haven't > already? > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Mikael Stå

Re: Discussion about logging on Reddit

We have LoggerNameLevelRewritePolicy. https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders.html#RewriteAppender On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > The conversations there make me think that some sort of ability to rewrite > log levels emitted from various loggers at configur

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1883) Timestamp does not seem to support microseconds level

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1883?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978986#comment-15978986 ] Remko Popma commented on LOG4J2-1883: - What you're saying makes sense and I'll be int

Re: Roadmap

On Apr 21, 2017 7:06 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote: What features in Java 8 do we need to take advantage of that we haven't already? How about java.time? Using an Instant instead of a long to timestamp an event? Gary Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > > I

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 02:48 schrieben Sie: > >> A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried >> to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but >> I've tak

Re: Roadmap

How does that benefit a user of Log4j in Java 8. In Java 9 it is certainly a benefit if it can provide microsecond granularity. Ralph > On Apr 21, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2017 7:06 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote: > > What features in Java 8 do we need to take advantage

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie: > That's correct, there's no need for ant at this point So we are dropping Ant and deleting it altogether? I can't remember a clear outcome of our former discussions. :-) This way we'll loose entire support for buildin

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15979252#comment-15979252 ] Stefan Bodewig commented on LOG4NET-563: Current trunk creates this site: https:/

Java 9 modules

I have not started work on this yet, but from looking at http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-9-modules-jpms-basics.html it seems we are going to have problems with a) plugins that are in different jars (modules) that use the same name

Re: Java 9 modules

As I read through this again it seems that perhaps the usage of Jackson could be specified as “requires static” so it is an optional dependency. However, I am getting the feeling that we are going to have a clash between log4j-api and log4j-core as log4j-api would export org.apache.logging.log4j

Re: Java 9 modules

On 2017-04-21, Ralph Goers wrote: > I have not started work on this yet, but from looking at > http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-9-modules-jpms-basics.html > it > seems we are going to have problems with a) plugins that are in > differ

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie: > >> That's correct, there's no need for ant at this point > > So we are dropping Ant and deleting it altogether? I can't remember a > clear outcome of our f

Re: Java 9 modules

I'm a fan of splitting packages up better due to OSGi support in the first place. Hierarchical packaging is definitely something new (OSGi doesn't care about that; each package is considered separately), and it could help in making some classes more organized. On 21 April 2017 at 14:55, Stefan Bod

Re: Roadmap

Using java.time is just a convenience compared to our FastDateTime commons classes anyways. Lambdas are supportable through regular single-method interfaces. As Mikael pointed out, though, default interface methods would be tremendously useful for log4j-api. Alternatively, we could create some abst

Re: Discussion about logging on Reddit

What I'm suggesting is remapping the levels before they're filtered. That's just for the output format. On 21 April 2017 at 11:04, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > We have LoggerNameLevelRewritePolicy. > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders.html#RewriteAppender > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1883) Timestamp does not seem to support microseconds level

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1883?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15979737#comment-15979737 ] Matt Sicker commented on LOG4J2-1883: - Agreed on seeing a PoC. For my own personal us

Re: [Scala][VOTE] Release log4j-api-scala 11.0 rc1

I'm not sure if the staging part is necessary technically since we're slicing up the site artifacts anyways, but we do need some more specific deployment instructions once that's figured out anyways. I may start a second release candidate vote soon if this one isn't sufficient. There are some wort