logging-log4net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:20:46 GMT
Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter
that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning
curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j
and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the
support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to
start off log4net2.

So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators,
therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we
would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing
generated code.

The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!

Cheers
On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "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