maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Logging
Date Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:58:29 GMT
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:;>
>
>

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