kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io>
Subject Re: Adding log4j-extras to Apache Kafka?
Date Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:52:55 GMT
Is there anything that would prevents us from moving directly to log4j2 as
the default log backend – independently of our efforts to move remaining
pieces to sl4fj? Unless we have some very custom code, it should be
possible to rely on log4j-1.2-api.jar to avoid having to migrate everything
at once, but still benefit from appenders already included with log4j2
(e.g. RollingFileAppender is already built into log4j2 core)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:16 PM Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Hi Colin,
>
> I think it's reasonable to include log4j-extras with the broker in the next
> release (1.1.0). In the 2.0.0 timeframe, we may decide to move to log4j2
> (or logback), but people can benefit from log4j-extras in the meantime.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Viktor,
> >
> > I was under the impression that slf4j is just a facade over the
> > underlying log library.  So the good thing about moving to slf4j is that
> > it will allow us to more easily migrate to a new log library (logback,
> > log4j2, etc.) in the future if we want.  slf4j is also better for
> > library code, because it allows the library user to continue using their
> > own logging library, rather than adopting ours.
> >
> > But I don't see why moving to slf4j would make log4j-extras less useful
> > to us.  Perhaps I'm missing something?
> >
> > Also, just to clarify, I was proposing including log4j-extras with the
> > Kafka brokers, not as a dependency of the producer, consumer, or other
> > library code.
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 06:25, Viktor Somogyi wrote:
> > > Hi Colin,
> > >
> > > Currently we are moving away from directly referencing log4j to using
> > > slf4j
> > > instead (KAFKA-1044). As this jira only aims to remove some runtime
> > > dependencies we still need more work but eventually users will be able
> to
> > > change to their own implementation.
> > >
> > > Despite all this the current default is still log4j and I think it
> would
> > > be
> > > a valuable conversation to have that what whether we keep it as a
> default
> > > in the future (it's quite old but with log4j-extras it can be a
> > > competition) or we change to others, like Log4j2 or Logback?
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Viktor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm curious if there is a reason we do not include log4j-extras in
> > > > Kafka.  If we had it, users could configure RollingFileAppender with
> > > > compression.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message