Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4net-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4net-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75AFF1838C for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29552 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2015 18:45:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4net-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29507 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2015 18:45:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4net-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: "Log4NET Dev" List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29497 invoked by uid 99); 26 Aug 2015 18:45:31 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DE646EE4C3 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.9 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e5LHukF_R2f9 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EA38220F3F for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbjg10 with SMTP id jg10so48169914igb.0 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jvNpjJwefAYWMREtqyW7ROUClUWjsEEWpdpzQXT6BvQ=; b=cJXieaqJQZ/NbdE1f0XbXWUWBd3AF+i97HQUwHj0XMhcMyF8W0pEpUC+pY3rLxo0KW ZJMwFDvMJui8AQUvtmCHvkYjLA02+lLaEUsgg2rAVUvWT5ugdL7IC8DmB099Z/BXyBmK azD+RLzrFQhNzPihnT5okWDRk93Nn36/ASu2IUYVKgharGJmOSyf4fdIOf247QUmWeq/ dfRLrZKxIwdex4bxWsC0hUvrYG/aGfmSIc9NboF189ouDsq/lZ21Sk4z1GVY3bO/MyuB 2TNrjO0aCKwxBAhrTSRsvkOn7sixpYgXx1/DuNGaiCp5YS7DzEzolr2VpGC1yoen9eU1 ZTVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.66.133 with SMTP id f5mr6265825igt.9.1440614724377; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.221.131 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.221.131 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8F58C80D-DCD0-4D23-88FD-8C26F3B13892@gowdy.me> References: <03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$@apache.org> <8761478d2c.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <61902B18-63B1-4D9A-886B-D02548FF10B4@gowdy.me> <8F58C80D-DCD0-4D23-88FD-8C26F3B13892@gowdy.me> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:45:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Log4net 2.0 From: Dominik Psenner To: Log4NET Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0faee7a4b8051e3b4081 --047d7bdc0faee7a4b8051e3b4081 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 26 Aug 2015 6:05 pm, "Jeremiah Gowdy" 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 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 : >>>> >>>> On 2015-08-19, 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 >>>> > --047d7bdc0faee7a4b8051e3b4081 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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 wo= rk with us, why not package it as log4net official or apache-log4net.=C2=A0= I don't get why packaging is off topic for the release of a .NET libra= ry.=C2=A0 If we are seeking to increase the user base, I would think an off= icial 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 th= ings 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 fe= w things will be dropped. Among them will be properties like IsDebugEnabled= , which could be handled very well internally with late evaluation of log m= essages.
>>>
>>> >=C2=A0Just be bold and embrace .NET 4.5
>>>
>>> I'm not at all against it, but there's almost no profi= t to target 4.5 over 4.0, but with 4.0 we have a much larger audience. Pers= onally I do simply want the #ifdefs to be gone for good. That said, I'v= e the impression that everything that doesn't fit into log4net core onl= y with #ifdefs should be dropped.
>>>
>>> >=C2=A0Forget supporting the current appenders.
>>> > I would approve of dropping high complexity, low reward a= ppenders 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 cause= s more trouble that it is worth will be dropped. :-)
>>>
>>> >=C2=A0What we do need with the appender interface is insta= ll/uninstall hooks.
>>>
>>> Nice idea. This will have to be worked out as early as possibl= e such that the new API can be designed to fit the needs.
>>>
>>> >=C2=A0We also need to take ownership of nuget packaging lo= g4net.
>>>
>>> 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 t= hat's it.
>>>
>>> >=C2=A0Personally 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 bu= shes!
>>>
>>> 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 lo= g4net and want log4net
>>>> > to be revived.
>>>>
>>>> even stronger.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dominik Psenner
>>>>
>

--047d7bdc0faee7a4b8051e3b4081--