commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [logging] Commons Logging 2.0?
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:50:06 GMT
On 30 November 2014 at 21:57, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2.0 would mean breaking BC to me.

Not necessarily. A big jump in minimum Java version might deserve a
major version bump.

> Keep it at 1.x to convey a warm and fuzzy feeling of compatibility.

Compatibility is not guaranteed by keeping the same major version number.
What's important is whether it really is compatible or not, and that
needs to be clearly documented.

> I would keep the changes to a minimum.

Here, I agree.

If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
version would be useful.

> For anything more I would point to log4j 2.
>
> Gary
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:11/30/2014  16:27  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To:
Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject:
[logging] Commons Logging 2.0? </div><div>
> </div>Hi folks,
>
> I am perfectly aware that I was saying CL needs to be deprecated only
> before month.
> Tomcat uses CL and that was more or less the reason it would stay - so I
> thought.
> Recently I talked to a person actively involved in Spring. He explained,
> Spring would use
> CL and they are quite happy with it. Reason: it's always the same.
>
> He also told me that - rather having a new JSR with new interfaces which
> would be difficult to get into the JDK - he would love to have some kind
> of CL 2.0.
>
> To be honest, it made me think and reconsider whatever I have thought or
> said in the past. I know Mark did say similar things, but maybe it is
> the power of a direct conversation.
>
> I am still unsure if a CL 2.0 would be needed or not and thats why I
> outreach here to ask for your feelings/opinions whatever.
>
> We have a Log4j2 which is really good. We have a slf4j which is fine.
> And we have a CL 1.x which is, well dated.
>
> Would it make sense to have a CL 2.0 which is more or less (maybe with
> small adjustments, despite the major version jump) a drop in
> replacement? It could just add some methods or things like variable
> substitutions, and thats it. Nothing big. Modern JVM support, some more
> methods. The rest all the same, except log4j 2 support (which is also
> provided by the log4j project).
>
> As mentioned I am still undecided. But CL 2.0 could be a minimal
> interface for consumers looking for stability instead of tons of
> features. However a bit more "modern taste" doesn't hurt, as long as it
> doesn't break things (too much).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message