OK, I sent my mail not to argue about which is better, and I resolve my
problem myself.
I have a jar of log4j-over-slf4j.jar in my classpath.
That's all. Thanks everyone.
2015-08-15 0:15 GMT+08:00 Xen :
> Then why do you need to persuade people? Why are they unwilling? Obviously
> they stand t
Thank you, it seems everything is so flexible that in the end it might
not even matter?
As long as you are willing to use the slf4j bridge / abstraction for
example ?.
?. Right.
Op 14-8-2015 om 22:06 schreef Douglas Wegscheid:
No I meant my thing might need to run on older platforms. E.g. I
> No I meant my thing might need to run on older platforms. E.g. I might
> want to run it on shell hosts or general cheap places, or interest other
> people in running it.
>
yes, if you are constrained to running on a JDK 5 platform, then finding a
suitable version of slf4j is one way to get it do
When I first read "cheap places" I thought of services like AWS ;-)
G
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Xen wrote:
> No I meant my thing might need to run on older platforms. E.g. I might
> want to run it on shell hosts or general cheap places, or interest other
> people in running it.
>
> Peopl
No I meant my thing might need to run on older platforms. E.g. I might
want to run it on shell hosts or general cheap places, or interest other
people in running it.
People are sometimes... idiosynchratic. I had (and have) a Debian based
shell host that ran Java 1.5 after which they got rid of
>
>
> Of course I can do that but not if my logging library requires greater.
> Right? Or should I (be able to) write against slf4j and then run on older
> systems by binding to an older version of Log4j?.
>
Write Java 5 style code, usel log4j2 2.4, compile it with Java 7, run it on
Java 7. You ca
I appreciate the passion. I wish it can be put to constructive use for
log4j 2 :-)
You might find it of interest that there is a recent mail thread to discuss
having Log4j 2 process properties-based configurations, as we did in 1.2.
Maybe the 1.2 compatibility module is an area that would be of in
Op 14-8-2015 om 19:10 schreef Douglas Wegscheid:
That's clearly a lie. You wouldn't say these things if you were really
happy and really convinced it'd be a replacement. That is make believe. In
that case you'd say something like
easy there. that's pretty harsh treatment of other list participa
It's hard to argue with that. Maybe there is a flaw in my mind ;-). I
just take the long-term perspective. I couldn't for the life of me write
differently because it would F with my Mind.
I have trouble as it is staying sane. Doing exactly what I want to do
seems to be the best way to avoid th
I have to agree with Remko. My ratio of lines-of-your-messages-read to
being-convinced-you-have-a-valid-point is exceedingly high. Also, truly
perceptive people judge the effectiveness of their communications based
on the feedback of others.
Cheers,
Eric
On 08/14/2015 02:19 PM, Xen wrote:
We
> So you are saying that you would simply add a log4j1 to log4j2 bridge
> right. And those libraries that use the old version then automatically use
> the bridge. And everything runs agains the new version then regardless.
>
yep. they designed it to do that, and it works as advertised. I used to
b
Well actually that is non-negotiable to me. I can't make my emails (or
whatever, I don't /NEED/ to be emailing here, that's not really the
point I am making...) shorter because then they'd miss the point and
have no effect. My emails are perfectly to the point, it is just that
the point needs m
So you are saying that you would simply add a log4j1 to log4j2 bridge
right. And those libraries that use the old version then automatically
use the bridge. And everything runs agains the new version then regardless.
I believe slf4j is also meant for that right? I don't like its
deployment but
Bart,
In reality we haven't been fixing issues in log4j 1.2 for a while, so the
announcement doesn't really change anything. We are all volunteers working
on this in our spare time, and we choose to spend our time working on log4j
2. We thought it was better for everyone if we make our intentions
>
>
> I must say though:
>
> "We are so happy with the quality and stability of Log4j 2, we are
> convinced it is a fantastic replacement for Log4j 1."
>
> That's clearly a lie. You wouldn't say these things if you were really
> happy and really convinced it'd be a replacement. That is make believe
which is the reason that projects aren't 'complying'?
- v2 is not better than v1
- the upgrade path and bridge jars mean the upgrading is really not
necessary.
I suspect it's the 2nd: why put a bunch of work into reworking all the
logging in my library (and forcing my users to change the
In response to Jinhong Lu:
"but all my projects, including spark, hadoop, kafka, they all use
log4j1.x "
I came across a project as well, it was /TeamPostgreSQL, /using 1.2 or
whatever, it is the only jar on its classpath.
I must say though:
"We are so happy with the quality and stabili
Then why do you need to persuade people? Why are they unwilling?
Obviously they stand to lose something or they would 'comply' of their own.
;-). Seriously, that's just the case. Your personal opinion doesn't
matter much it is about what it does to people.
Op 14-8-2015 om 16:19 schreef Mikael
I don't agree with you that Log4j 2 is worse than Log4j 1. Log4j 2 is a
huge improvement.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Xen wrote:
> That is precisely the sort of stuff you get when your application or newer
> version is actually worse than your older version, and now you need to do
> effort
That is precisely the sort of stuff you get when your application or
newer version is actually worse than your older version, and now you
need to do effort to "persuade" others in joining you when you have not
really improved things ;-).
I was writing some longer email I guess, I will send it
Perhaps the Log4j developers should spend some time to persuade other
Apache projects to start using Log4j 2.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Jinhong Lu wrote:
> you mean upgrade to log4j2?
>
> but all my projects, including spark, hadoop, kafka, they all use log4j1.x
>
> 2015-08-14 13:25 GMT+0
21 matches
Mail list logo
