logging-log4net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:25:40 GMT
To answer your last question, at the ASF the project committers decide what they are going
to do. They make decisions by discussing their ideas on the mailing list.  In some ways, the
ASF is a “do-ocracy”. You can make all the recommendations you want, but ultimately it
is up to whoever implements it.

Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html>.

Ralph




> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
> 
> I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion
was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is
an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.
> 
> In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running
on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.
 I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
> 
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.
 And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
> 
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this
work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
>> From: bodewig@apache.org
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org; log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>> 
>> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> 
>>> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>> 
>>> Gary
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>> 
>>>> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
>>>> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>>>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>> 
>>> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>> 
>> This is certainly part of the reason.  log4net was started as a port of
>> 1.x a long time ago.  The developers (long before I joined) added some
>> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
>> configuration).
>> 
>> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
>> list[1] and some people expressed interest.  Any hand that can offer
>> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>> 
>> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>> 
>> Stefan
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>> 
> 		 	   		  


Mime
View raw message