logging-log4net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:19:24 GMT
It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the
infrastructure underneath it all...

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:

> Not sure.  I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be.  I
> wasn't expecting *huge*.  And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only
> consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting
> point?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
> Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some
> kind?
> Gary
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
> I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just
> don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be
> interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to
> port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level
> values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
>
> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> CC: log4net-user@logging.apache.org
>
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> "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?  Any chance log4net might become
> more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>
> Spring Batch in Action
>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>



-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
View raw message