logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Response to call to arms
Date Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:27:26 GMT
Welcome Tommy

I'm sure we can use your expertise if we'd want to handle our platform
zoo in an easier way :-)

Also, since you mention .NET Core. I've created some test builds[1] as
precursor for the next release - this was before we started to merge
Joe's pull requests. AFAIK nobody has verified the .NET Core version
actually works the way it is supposed to.

And we might need some docs about using and configuring log4net on .NET

That being said, once you raise your hand you'll probably get asked to
do more. So don't allow us to push you into directions you don't want to
go :-)


[1] http://stefan.samaflost.de/staging/log4net-2.0.6/

On 2016-10-19, Tommy Parnell wrote:

> I too added myself to this list from the blog post. I am https://github.com/terribledev
I usually have a few days a month to help with these kinds of projects. Been using log4net
since 2011. Mostly interested in performance things, and helping on .net core compatibility.
That being said always willing to bug fix, and shave some yaks. My bread and butter is in
CI/CD (i've built dotnet projects in ruby, node, msbuild only, cake, sake, etc.) so yeah can
do that too! I have done quite a bit with shared projects, with compiler directives. Work
in Boston, MA USA [πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ]  moved here from the UK [πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§] . so yeah that's me!

> Oh also, Generics [πŸ‘]  and linq [πŸ‘] [πŸ‘] [πŸ‘]  Love the ideas! I'll probably
grok the codebase for a while, and eventually pick up a jira or two.

> [https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/3459800?v=3&s=400]<https://github.com/terribledev>

> TerribleDev (Tommy Parnell) Β· GitHub<https://github.com/terribledev>
> github.com
> TerribleDev has 116 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub.

> ________________________________
> From: Dominik Psenner <dpsenner@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:28 AM
> To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Response to call to arms

> Hi Joe,

> good to read you and welcome on the dev list! You're free to work on issues that attract
your attention. Nobody's going to force you to work on things you don't deem to be worth the

> We've already decided to gradually drop official support for ancient .net frameworks
like .NET 1.X. We are no longer going to actively maintain those targets and if changes to
the codebase break those targets we are no longer going to fix that unless someone else provides
a patch that restores compatibility. This means that we are shifting the responsibility of
maintenance to whoever requires the latest log4net version to work on those ancient platforms.

> Further, compact framework mostly does not support several appenders that for example
target the System.Net namespace. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory a prominent
example appender is the EmailAppender. I agree with you that it would be a great improvement
if we were able to refactor away all those #ifdef's. Unfortunately this wish is very hard
to achieve, even impossible if we wanted to stay backwards compatible.

> Backwards compatibility is the next thing I would like to mention. log4net is a logging
framework and one of the highest goods is its backwards compatibility. If we are going to
break that we must follow a path similar to that of log4j2. In that world the old API facades
the log4j2 API and therefore migration of existing code is trivial.

> Cheers and greets,Dominik

> On 2016-10-18 22:42, Joe wrote:
> I'm responding to Stefan's call-to-arms, though I have limited time available, currently
probably not more than a day or two a month.

> Given my lack of time I would probably want to get involved in specific short-term tasks,
such as taking on issues from the issue tracker, rather than being a driver to shape the future
of log4net.

> I have been involved recently in writing a custom asynchronous appender that logs to
a WebAPI, so asynchronous appenders is one area I could get involved in.

> One thing I'd personally like to see is to drop support for some legacy platforms:

>    - The few .NET 1.x users left are probably adequately served by existing versions
of log4net.
>    - It's not onerous for .NET 2.0/3.0 users to upgrade to .NET 3.5, so these could maybe
be dropped too (existing apps don’t need to be rebuilt; they just need to ensure 3.5 is
>    - I've no experience with Compact Framework, but wonder whether, given the platform
restrictions, it would be better served going forward by a separate code base with a simplified
and restricted logging framework that exposes an identical API to applications.

> Doing this would make development easier, for example by allowing the use of generics
and Linq.
> Which in turn might attract more developers ...

> One way to approach it would be to remove the binaries for these platforms from the next
release, and only remove from the source code if a reasonable period elapses without too much
wailing and gnashing of teeth.

View raw message