logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)" <r...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 'log4r' - a new 'log4j' like framework about to be released ...
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:06:26 GMT
Hi Curt,

thank you very much for your feedback, hints and explanations!

... cut ...
>> dubbed "log4r".
> There is already a log4r which is a log4j-like logging framework for
> Ruby (http://log4r.sourceforge.net).
Oh, I was not aware of that!

> There are two different things that you might be suggesting and they
> are substantially different.  One is to add your log4r to the list of
> third-party logging inspired by frameworks that we maintain on the
> logging.apache.org site.  There should be no difficulty on that other
> than the inertia of our web-site maintenance (and there is some light
> at the end of the tunnel on addressing that).

> The second is to have log4r to become part of the ASF Logging Services
> project.  There has been an interest in logging frameworks for
> scripting languages within the project and I would expect the PMC
> would be receptive to a project that wanted to come in that had a good
> likelihood of developing a viable developer and user community. 
> However, the incubation of log4php was recently terminated due to a
> failure to grow beyond the original author.

> Since the existing work was done outside of a community, it would need
> to go through the incubation process (http://incubator.apache.org)
> before entering logging services proper.  I'm thinking that the
> recently formed Apache Labs (http://labs.apache.org) might be a good
> place to start particularly if you think that log4r might become a
> candidate to go through the incubation process.  That would
> significantly reduce all the legal issues involved with getting CLA's
> for all the contributors etc on an eventual trip through the
> incubator.  Since you have an @apache.org email address, likely you
> could start a lab with little or no effort.
Will look into this, thanks for the lab idea, which sounds very sound!
;) Ad license: as I am the only one at the moment, there is no problem.
Going through a lab of course would make sure that the project (and
possible enhancements, additions) are bound to the ASF license.

> The dual licensing would become an issue when you have contributions
> from others.  You would retain the copyright of all code that you
> write and can license it as many ways as you would like, but you would
> not automatically be granted rights to distribute contributes from
> others under any other license than the ASL.
Right, mostlikely the CPL is not really needed (there is the yearly
International Rexx symposium taking place next week in Florida, where I
will discuss this particular point; AFIAK the ASF license would be
compatibel to the CPL one that ooRexx is created under, such that I
could probably remove the CPL one.


Will be "off"  for a few weeks (travel, looking about the adoption of
the present log4r framework, which gets introduced next week to the Rexx
community, and checking out the interest of the ooRexx community in
further extending the present framework, such that estimating the
building of a community can be at least vaguely estimated).

Again, Curt, thank you very much for your feedback, explanations and ideas!



View raw message