logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GA?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:07:17 GMT
The thing about OSGi support is that it may require API changes. I've
already submitted a patch that does just that (well, it's a
backwards-compatible change). OSGi has more esoteric class loader issues
that makes dynamic class loading a bit more difficult. When it comes to
packaging the individual bundles, that will also depend upon how modular
the bundles are in the first place. I'd like to do a basic audit of
self-contained modules.

Also, if we want to provide several bundles for all the different available
appenders, filters, etc., then we should really organize those into
packages at least. It's more difficult to break up a package into several
bundles than it is to use specific packages in each bundle.

On 27 January 2014 08:15, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another Beta.
> I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
> What about:
> - Now: Another Beta
> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may be
> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty frequent for
> our bunch for a ramp down.
> Thoughts on that?
> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as more of
> a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container with
> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one bundle
> (jar) per appender?
> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in servlet
> environments.
> Gary
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just MAJORLY
>> overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would be a shame if
>> someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that caused us to need
>> to change the API to fix it.
>> Nick
>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are showstoppers
>> IMHO.
>> Remko
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out what
>>> are blockers to a GA release.  My list includes:
>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be
>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on
>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels instead.
>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don’t believe we
>>> will be able to do that for GA.
>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels is
>>> required?
>>> Ralph
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

View raw message