maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
Subject Re: Logging
Date Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:12:15 GMT
Maybe you can copy over the index.html we can prevent the directory listing from showing up
on our home page.

On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:

> http://markmail.org/message/mpgn4yshnt2qmdui
> 
> 2012/12/10 Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io>:
>> Not sure what's happening but:
>> 
>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies.html
>> 
>> is not there.
>> 
>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2012/12/10 Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>:
>>>> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 20:50:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>>>> I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient
fix
>>>>> for the embedding problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency
>>>>> with parallel builds and who knows what else. This will patch/change
#5 and
>>>>> many hours of trying to get SLF4J Simple to work but I think we're pushing
>>>>> the simple implementation beyond its scope. So I'd just like to put in
>>>>> Logback and be done with it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are at least three of us opposed to using a new logging framework,
>>>> logging *implementation*, please, not framework: the framework is slf4j-api,
>>>> on which our code will have much dependency. The logging implementation is
far
>>>> less invasive choice (even if not completely null).
>>>> 
>>>>> but I don't think there is anyone against using Logback.
>>>> why this provocation? (should I say lack of respect for others opinion?)
>>>> 
>>>>> I honestly don't think
>>>>> there is any rational argument for not using Logback,  so after doing
all
>>>>> the SLF4J work and making a best effort to use SLF4J Simple I think it's
>>>>> pointless to pursue that path any longer and put in Logback.
>>>> we'll need to wait for 3.1.1 and a vote to have a chance to stop tension
about
>>>> this: whatever choice is done, there will be some devs unhappy who will have
>>>> to live with it
>>>> 
>>>> notice I won't be able to reply for the next half day, my intent with this
>>>> reply is just to avoid one more re-spin of a feeling that the vote won't
>>>> happen and let Olivier once more jump on the case
>>>> I just hope I won't have to read a lot of replies to this tonight when I'm
>>>> back from work and loose my time carefully reading if anything new or
>>>> interesting is written
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have already explained my opinion.
>>> Folks think log4j2 is "immature" and/or don't have a community of
>>> various people.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore it looks it's not anymore possible to use "immature"
>>> libraries in core (whereas it has been done for more important part:
>>> sisu or aether).
>>> 
>>> But now that's not anymore possible...
>>> Well things evolve and POV can change that's the life....
>>> 
>>> BTW due to our policy [1] and if I correctly read license here [2] a
>>> vote is mandatory. (and don't ask me to start this vote :-) ).
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Olivier
>>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies
>>> [2] http://logback.qos.ch/license.html
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Hervé
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arnaud Héritier <aheritier@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> I'm a little bit lost too.
>>>>>> Thus for now in 3.1.0 we didn't want to provide a new logging impl
fwk
>>>>>> (for
>>>>>> many - good - reasons) but the last bug discovered by Kristian can
be
>>>>>> solved only
>>>>>> * by having a fix from slf4j (but it isn't sure that the patch makes
sense
>>>>>> - to be validated by Ceki)
>>>>>> * or by using a more evolved impl like logback (or log4j ...).
>>>>>> I think that everyone's will prefer the first solution if possible
but if
>>>>>> we cannot we'll have the question to select the impl.
>>>>>> Do we need to vote ? Is there really a question logback vs log4j(2)
?
>>>>>> Like I said in another thread I'll understand if the project decide
to
>>>>>> choose log4j2 even if it is young because we want to support another
ASF
>>>>>> initiative (And I'm sure we won't have to regret it, and we'll have
a
>>>>>> really good support from its team) but in a general case I would
prefer to
>>>>>> choose logback which is today the reference logging framework (I
that case
>>>>>> we need to have a PMC vote to accept an external component under
EPL
>>>>>> license http://maven.apache.org/developers/dependency-policies ?).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do we need (for 3.1.0) ? What do we do ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arnaud
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>> Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to
add my
>>>>>>> perspective on this topic.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of
the more
>>>>>>> advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already
also
>>>>>>> stated.
>>>>>>> Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while
we
>>>>>>> investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then
select
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple
can't
>>>>>>> do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option
>>>>>>> unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies?
I'll
>>>>>>> leave that to others working with that to decide.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my
choice
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being
a past
>>>>>>> experience where I developed an audit logging solution based
on logback,
>>>>>>> where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies
when it came
>>>>>>> to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with
this fixed
>>>>>>> though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when
there is
>>>>>>> proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that
he will
>>>>>>> help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working
with log4j2
>>>>>>> will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I
know
>>>>>>> Ceki's.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would
be so much
>>>>>>> better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release
and
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although
using
>>>>>>> slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching
impl
>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>> on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some
people do
>>>>>>> solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar
plugin
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> example).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> /Anders
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>>>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2.
>>>>>>>>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and
I'm happy.
>>>>>>>>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release
it.
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community
in case of any
>>>>>>>>>> issue we could have.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion
is actually
>>>>>>>>> going,  but I'm firmly opposed
>>>>>>>>> to including a brand new logging framework as default
in m3.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org<javascript:;>
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jason
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>> 
>>  -- Shakespeare
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

To do two things at once is to do neither.
 
 -- Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.






Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message