logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Log4net 2.0
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:24 GMT
On 26 Aug 2015 6:05 pm, "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@gowdy.me> wrote:
>
> Following up on this, I contacted the package maintainer and they said
they are willing to transfer ownership to the log4net project.

Thats great news. Do you happen to know him in person?

>
>> 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> 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like outdated .NET remoting.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>:
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-19, <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