anything complicated)
> Log4j Boot modules for easy dependency management
> -
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1775
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1775
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Ty
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Sicker resolved LOG4J2-1776.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Matt Sicker
All the modules in that list have been added
f backend framework.
> log4j-boot pom modules for dependency management
>
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1776
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776
> Project: Log4j 2
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Sicker updated LOG4J2-1776:
Fix Version/s: boot-1.0-alpha1
> log4j-boot pom modules for dependency managem
-core or the addon modules. For
the jms, jpa, and smtp (log4j-core) appenders, we could either make add in a
default provider (e.g., ActiveMQ, Hibernate, and Sun Mail respectively) or
split those into provider-specific starters.
was:
This is the main feature for the Log4j Boot epic (LOG4J2-1775
plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpane
>> l&focusedCommentId=15819217#comment-15819217 ]
>>
>> Mikael Ståldal commented on LOG4J2-1776:
>> ----
>>
>> Why do we have logback here?
>>
>> > log4j-boot pom
7#comment-15819217 ]
>
> Mikael Ståldal commented on LOG4J2-1776:
>
>
> Why do we have logback here?
>
> > log4j-boot pom modules for dependency management
> >
> >
; log4j-boot pom modules for dependency management
>
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1776
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: New Feature
&g
missed a few, but the base set of starters should at least
correspond to all optional dependencies in log4j-core or the addon modules. For
the jms, jpa, and smtp (log4j-core) appenders, we could either make add in a
default provider (e.g., ActiveMQ, Hibernate, and Sun Mail respectively) or
split
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1775?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Sicker updated LOG4J2-1775:
Summary: Log4j Boot modules for easy dependency management (was: Add boot
pom files for
the base set of starters should at least
correspond to all optional dependencies in log4j-core or the addon modules. For
the jms, jpa, and smtp (log4j-core) appenders, we could either make add in a
default provider (e.g., ActiveMQ, Hibernate, and Sun Mail respectively) or
split those into
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Sicker updated LOG4J2-1776:
Summary: log4j-boot pom modules for dependency management (was:
log4j-starter pom modules for
ter pom modules for dependency management
> ---
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1776
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: New Feature
>
-boot" is even better, plus it carries a connotation
that's pretty easy to understand in the current Java ecosystem.
> log4j-starter pom modules for dependency management
> ---
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1776
>
" also be acceptable? It's a wee bit shorter.
Gary
> log4j-starter pom modules for dependency management
> ---
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1776
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1
Matt Sicker created LOG4J2-1776:
---
Summary: log4j-starter pom modules for dependency management
Key: LOG4J2-1776
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1776
Project: Log4j 2
Issue
re. It would be nice to include the abstract base
>>>> classes in log4j-core if they're dependency-free, but I don't have a strong
>>>> opinion on whether to make it its own module.
>>>>
>>>> Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split along wit
mq
>
> If these share anything I'm okay to keep that in core.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 6 Dec 2016, at 2:54, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> You don't need to include "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use
> "nosql" or "sql&quo
lude "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use "nosql"
> or "sql" as common dependencies (i.e., the abstract classes).
>
>> On 5 December 2016 at 11:23, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Mikael Ståldal
>>>
By that, I mean the word "nosql".
On 5 December 2016 at 11:54, Matt Sicker wrote:
> You don't need to include "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use
> "nosql" or "sql" as common dependencies (i.e., the abstract classes).
>
> On 5
You don't need to include "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use
"nosql" or "sql" as common dependencies (i.e., the abstract classes).
On 5 December 2016 at 11:23, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Mikael Ståldal
> wrote:
&g
ee, but I don't have a strong
>>> opinion on whether to make it its own module.
>>>
>>> Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split along with the other modules.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, right, dependencies. So:
>>
>> log4j-db
>> log4j-db-nosql
ase
>> classes in log4j-core if they're dependency-free, but I don't have a strong
>> opinion on whether to make it its own module.
>>
>> Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split along with the other modules.
>>
>
> Ah, right, dependencies. So:
>
>
g4j-nosql should be split along with the other modules.
>
Ah, right, dependencies. So:
log4j-db
log4j-db-nosql
log4j-db-nosql-counchdb
log4j-db-nosql-mongodb
log4j-db-jdbc
log4j-db-jpa
If we really want to thin our core, that justifies having log4j-db and
log4j-db-nosq.
Then we are almost at the
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> I would prefer the modules to be named like this to make names less clumsy:
>
> log4j-jdbc
> log4j-jpa
> log4j-jms
> log4j-kafka
> log4j-zeromq (better than log4j-jeromq)
>
> It seems like the proposed log4j-db
I agree with Mikael here. It would be nice to include the abstract base
classes in log4j-core if they're dependency-free, but I don't have a strong
opinion on whether to make it its own module.
Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split along with the other modules.
On 5 December 201
I would prefer the modules to be named like this to make names less clumsy:
log4j-jdbc
log4j-jpa
log4j-jms
log4j-kafka
log4j-zeromq (better than log4j-jeromq)
It seems like the proposed log4j-db module would be very small and not have
any external dependencies? In that case I suggest we keep
I think we should focus on splitting into modules now, and worry about
repos later.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Possible modules and names, with the idea that they all depend on log4j-db:
>
> log4j-db
> log4j-db-nosql
> log4j-db-jdbc
> log4j-db-
Possible modules and names, with the idea that they all depend on log4j-db:
log4j-db
log4j-db-nosql
log4j-db-jdbc
log4j-db-jpa
The naming hints that log4j-db is the parent of all log4j-db-* modules.
We can do something similar for MOM (JMS) except that JMS, ZeroMQ and Kafka
appenders do not
t; Note the common code in .core.db for .core.db.jdbc and .core.db.jpa. It
>> seems just that little bit should go in its own module or stay in core.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also: package
it should go in its own module or stay in core.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Gary Gregory
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also: package names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code
>>>> und
;
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Gary Gregory
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Also: package names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code
>>>> under the .core. package anymore. I would:
>>>>
>&g
gt;> wrote:
> Also: package names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code under
> the .core. package anymore. I would:
>
> Create the new modules with code not in .core. and deprecate the equivalent
> in .core.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:0
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also: package names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code
>>> under the .core. package anymore. I would:
>>>
>>> Create the new modules
names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code
>> under the .core. package anymore. I would:
>>
>> Create the new modules with code not in .core. and deprecate the
>> equivalent in .core.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Gary Gr
.core. package anymore. I would:
>
> Create the new modules with code not in .core. and deprecate the
> equivalent in .core.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Hm... this is also an opportunity to pick more precise names: log4j-jd
Also: package names, it does not make sense to have JDBC and JPA code under
the .core. package anymore. I would:
Create the new modules with code not in .core. and deprecate the equivalent
in .core.
Gary
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hm... this is also an opportun
nosql-common component
> (unless the abstract classes were put into log4j-core).
>
> On 4 December 2016 at 12:44, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Thoughts on splitting out SQL and MOM (JMS) into their own modules? We
>> already have a nosql module, having a sql one makes sense. The o
#x27;t optional dependencies. That would either mean a mongo and
couch component, or it could also mean an additional nosql-common component
(unless the abstract classes were put into log4j-core).
On 4 December 2016 at 12:44, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Thoughts on splitting out SQL and MOM (JMS) into
The MOM appenders and such could be made into its own repo, possibly
subcomponents within a general messaging repo. This would include JMS,
Kafka, and JeroMQ as of now along with any other future additions.
I'd prefer that the modules were small enough that they could stop relying
on opt
Thoughts on splitting out SQL and MOM (JMS) into their own modules? We
already have a nosql module, having a sql one makes sense. The overall idea
is to make core lighter.
t; On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specifically did bring
> Java 9 modules into the discussion because they should at least be
> considered along with the Java 8 profiles. Right now I am sure we have
> stuff that
> On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specifically did bring
> Java 9 modules into the discussion because they should at least be considered
> along with the Java 8 profiles. Right now I am sure we have stuff that
I do like the idea of moving plugins that have optional dependencies into
their own modules that have required dependencies. That would certainly
make usage easier.
On 3 October 2016 at 03:21, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> If we should reorganize the project, there is another issue we sho
ating the advantage of using
Maven (or Ivy, Gradle, SBT) in the first place.
If we should split up log4j-core, then I would like to move out everything
that have transitive dependencies to their own modules, and make those
dependencies non-optional in those new modules.
I don't really see the p
. However, I
> have no doubt that we could find a way to integrate the two sites together.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
together.
Ralph
> On Sep 30, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:04, Ralph Goers <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specificall
>>>> Gary
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Matt Sicker
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh wait, Ralph is talking about something else entirely.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt
t;>
> >>> On 30 September 2016 at 12:05, Gary Gregory
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Right, hence this thread ;-) I am not hot about having multiple builds
> >>>> FYIW.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary
> >
ntirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory
gt;>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>> Oh wait, Ralph is talking about something else entirely.
>>>>
>>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specifically did bring
> Java 9 modules into the discussion because they should at least be considered
> along with the Java 8 profiles. Right now I am sur
om>> wrote:
> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
>
> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while Matt
> mentioned merging some back into
:50, Gary Gregory <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while Matt
> mentioned merging some back into Core.
>
> Shall we discuss this on the ML instead of Jira?
>
> I could also see doing an uber jar (mo
Oh, and FWIW, I have never really been interested in the uber jar. To me, the
bom is really all that is required for that.
Ralph
> On Sep 30, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specifically did bring
> Java 9 modu
att Sicker wrote:
>
>> Oh wait, Ralph is talking about something else entirely.
>>
>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>
>>> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
>>>
>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gr
uld be merged into log4j-core.
>>
>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while Matt
>>> mentioned merging some back into Core.
>>>
>>> Shall we disc
Actually, I just created LOG4J2-1627 for this and I specifically did bring Java
9 modules into the discussion because they should at least be considered along
with the Java 8 profiles. Right now I am sure we have stuff that would create
problems with trying to run in compact profiles 1 and 2
Oh wait, Ralph is talking about something else entirely.
On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
>
> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some
I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while Matt
> mentioned merging some back into Core.
>
> Shall we discuss this on the ML instead of Jira?
>
Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while Matt
mentioned merging some back into Core.
Shall we discuss this on the ML instead of Jira?
I could also see doing an uber jar (mod the mutually exclusive jars) and
reorging the system with a smaller core (everything e
61 matches
Mail list logo
