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, 24 Dec 2012 17:08:44 GMT
I will try out Ceki's suggestion early next week and report back.

On Dec 24, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep if simple is back on the table commit that and let the fight be
> resolved later.
> 
> This logback vs log4j2 debate seems fractious to try and resolve right now
> so sticking to your original plan of the *non-choice* that is simple will
> allow moving forward (though with some cribbing and moaning from the "we
> want coloured logging" brigade)
> 
> ;-)
> 
> On Monday, 24 December 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm going to push this along and I agree with Stephen insofar as if you
>> prefer an implementation then there should be a branch to support that
>> preference. Thus far I have not seen anything aside from Stephen's efforts
>> which are a PoC so the choice is between SLF4J Simple, Logback and Log4J2.
>> 
>> You're original plan was to get a release out with Simple and fight
>> later. That would be fine with me.
>> 
>> Based on prior discussions and votes, I don't see anyone vetoing that
>> commit or a vote failing to pass. I'm not sure what I think would
>> happen if you just committed logback or log4j at this point; they seem
>> much of a muchness to me. You prefer logback, but log4j floats certain
>> boats.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> If we want to put aside the debate, Ceki has figured out a way for use
>> SLF4J Simple by resetting the streams and logging level. Which I can try if
>> we want to go down that path. I didn't have to do any work in SLF4J myself
>> so I'm fine with this approach.
>>> 
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com<javascript:;>
>>> :
>>>>>> Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some
>> code
>>>>> to
>>>>>> make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and
>>>>> committing
>>>>>> it, those branches are dead... as are those choices.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IF YOU WANT TO SPONSOR ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES THEN WRITE THE DAMN
CODE
>> TO
>>>>>> GET THEM WALKING AGAIN
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs
>>>>>> I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating
>>>>> for
>>>>>> log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes
>> the
>>>>>> ITs.
>>>>> branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this
>>>>> jenkins job
>>>>> 
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/core-integration-testing-maven-3-jdk-1.6-log4j2/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will
>> now
>>>> rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up
>>>> from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent
>> third
>>>>>> party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration
>> tests
>>>>> to
>>>>>> pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either
>> has a
>>>>>> branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are
>> needing
>>>>>> to give better proof.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing
>> against
>>>>>> log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one
of
>> the
>>>>>> other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing
some
>>>>>> code...)
>>>>> My 0.02 euros.
>>>>> Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue.
>>>>> And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports
>>>>> from folks on the other thread)
>>>>> I read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html (agree
>>>>> benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if
>>>>> runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care.
>>>>> Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good
>>>>> license for our Maven.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I
>> have
>>>> not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options
>> through
>>>> the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical
>>>> debates.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Jason
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
>> talking about.
>>> 
>>> -- John von Neumann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
---------------------------------------------------------

A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
is responsible for the quality of the whole

 -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language






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