logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremiah Gowdy <jerem...@gowdy.me>
Subject Re: Log4net 2.0
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:04:53 GMT
Following up on this, I contacted the package maintainer and they said they are willing to
transfer ownership to the log4net project.

> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:15 AM, jeremiah@gowdy.me wrote:
> 
> If we can't force the owner of the nuget log4net package to work with us, why not package
it as log4net official or apache-log4net.  I don't get why packaging is off topic for the
release of a .NET library.  If we are seeking to increase the user base, I would think an
official package in the package manager of choice would be a key component of that.
> 
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Dominik Psenner <a@apache.org <mailto:a@apache.org>>
wrote:
> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> I wanted this discussion to stay open for a week and that time is over now. For now
I'll try to answer questions and clarify a few things so that you get another chance to raise
your voice.
>> 
>> > Will the code be compatible with the current version?
>> 
>> The API should stay more or less the same, but eventually a few things will be dropped.
Among them will be properties like IsDebugEnabled, which could be handled very well internally
with late evaluation of log messages.
>> 
>> > Just be bold and embrace .NET 4.5
>> 
>> I'm not at all against it, but there's almost no profit to target 4.5 over 4.0, but
with 4.0 we have a much larger audience. Personally I do simply want the #ifdefs to be gone
for good. That said, I've the impression that everything that doesn't fit into log4net core
only with #ifdefs should be dropped.
>> 
>> > Forget supporting the current appenders.
>> > I would approve of dropping high complexity, low reward appenders like outdated
.NET remoting.
>> 
>> We will add filters and appenders that are easy to implement (or already there) for
the targeted framework. To be honest, only what causes more trouble that it is worth will
be dropped. :-)
>> 
>> > What we do need with the appender interface is install/uninstall hooks.
>> 
>> Nice idea. This will have to be worked out as early as possible such that the new
API can be designed to fit the needs.
>> 
>> > We also need to take ownership of nuget packaging log4net.
>> 
>> This discussion is off topic and has already been dealt with. We simply cannot force
the owner of the nuget package to work with us and that's it.
>> 
>> > Personally I'd like to emphasize
>> >> [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping hands
>> 
>> Thanks Justin, I'm glad that you're willing to lend a hand!
>> 
>> Everyone else, please note that the more hands we can get, the faster and easier
it is going to be. Thus, volunteers, jump out of your bushes!
>> 
>> That's it from me, for now;
>> 
>> 
>> 2015-08-22 19:09 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org <mailto:bodewig@apache.org>>:
>> On 2015-08-19, <dpsenner@apache.org <mailto:dpsenner@apache.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Last night I've dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process of
>> > log4net happened on a flick of a switch.
>> 
>> A wonderful dream.
>> 
>> Personally I'd like to emphasize
>> 
>> > [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping hands
>> > and therefore this message goes to people that use log4net and want log4net
>> > to be revived.
>> 
>> even stronger.
>> 
>> Stefan
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dominik Psenner
>> 


Mime
View raw message