log4cxx library development

Wiebesiek, Torsten | 25 Jan 2012 15:21

Is log4cxx still alive?

Hi folks,

I just tried to figure out, if log4cxx is still alive. The latest
repository commit seems to be about 19 months old, and the traffic on
the mailinglists (http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/mail-lists.html)
seems to be very low.

Can anyone tell me the state of the log4cxx project? And, is there a
better place to get current information about log4cxx?

Thanks,

  Torsten

headers

David Shrader | 25 Jan 2012 18:16

RE: Is log4cxx still alive?

Good question. I have another and probably not quite appropriate for this forum, but is there a C++ logging
library with better community support and/or feature set? I have been investigating Google's glog... http://code.google.com/p/google-glog/

David Shrader
Core Technology Manager

Spot Trading L.L.C
440 South LaSalle St., Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60605
Office: 312-362-4550
Direct: 312-362-4508
Fax: 312.362.4529
david.shrader <at> spottradingllc.com

www.spottradingllc.com <http://www.spottradingllc.com/>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Spot Trading, LLC

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiebesiek, Torsten [mailto:torsten.wiebesiek <at> grecon.de]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:22 AM
To: log4cxx-dev <at> logging.apache.org
Subject: Is log4cxx still alive?

Hi folks,

(Continue reading)

headers

Bernd Prager | 25 Jan 2012 18:36

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?


How about http://boost-log.sourceforge.net/libs/log/doc/html/index.html?

On 1/25/2012 12:16 PM, David Shrader wrote:
> Good question. I have another and probably not quite appropriate for this forum, but is there a C++ logging
library with better community support and/or feature set? I have been investigating Google's glog... http://code.google.com/p/google-glog/
>
>
>
> David Shrader
> Core Technology Manager
>
> Spot Trading L.L.C
> 440 South LaSalle St., Suite 2800
> Chicago, IL 60605
> Office: 312-362-4550
> Direct: 312-362-4508
> Fax: 312.362.4529
> david.shrader <at> spottradingllc.com
>
> www.spottradingllc.com<http://www.spottradingllc.com/>
>
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Spot Trading, LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----

(Continue reading)

headers

Rhys Ulerich | 25 Jan 2012 18:47

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

> I just tried to figure out, if log4cxx is still alive.

You could characterize log4cxx as undead.

The mailing list tends to be low volume because (a) the documentation
is good, (b) the code is good and (c) most "How can I do XYZ?" queries
have answers identical to their Java log4j equivalent.

I wouldn't shy away from log4cxx for the reasons you mention.  I would
shy away if you're uncomfortable periodically digging in the issue
tracker to resolve build-related questions.  Or if something in the
issue tracker is a must-have feature because, as you've noted, there's
not a lot of new feature development.

- Rhys

headers

Joseph Southwell | 25 Jan 2012 19:17

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

You are spot on about the documentation but I just added 3 fixes to it locally and got no reply from the mailing
list about adding them up stream.  There are bugs in the current source tree and you get ignored when you
propose fixes. Possibly I am not going about that correctly but I didn't even get a process suggestion in
response so I am going to be looking to switch logging libraries in my next release. 

I am already using boost so the idea of a boost logging library appeals to me, so props to Bernd. 

On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Rhys Ulerich wrote:

>> I just tried to figure out, if log4cxx is still alive.
> 
> You could characterize log4cxx as undead.
> 
> The mailing list tends to be low volume because (a) the documentation
> is good, (b) the code is good and (c) most "How can I do XYZ?" queries
> have answers identical to their Java log4j equivalent.
> 
> I wouldn't shy away from log4cxx for the reasons you mention.  I would
> shy away if you're uncomfortable periodically digging in the issue
> tracker to resolve build-related questions.  Or if something in the
> issue tracker is a must-have feature because, as you've noted, there's
> not a lot of new feature development.
> 
> - Rhys
> 

Joseph Southwell
joseph <at> southwell.org
===================
The past is history.

(Continue reading)

headers

Wiebesiek, Torsten | 26 Jan 2012 10:37

AW: Is log4cxx still alive?

> > I just tried to figure out, if log4cxx is still alive.
>
> You could characterize log4cxx as undead.
>
> The mailing list tends to be low volume because (a) the documentation
> is good, (b) the code is good and (c) most "How can I do XYZ?" queries
> have answers identical to their Java log4j equivalent.
>
> I wouldn't shy away from log4cxx for the reasons you mention.  I would
> shy away if you're uncomfortable periodically digging in the issue
> tracker to resolve build-related questions.  Or if something in the
> issue tracker is a must-have feature because, as you've noted, there's
> not a lot of new feature development.

Well, I don't shy away from using log4cxx. Actually, we are using it 
extensively. But switching from Visual Studio 2008 to 2010 was really 
a pain. Not because of log4cxx, but because of a compiler flaw. We had 
to move a bunch of these LOG4CXX_LIST_DEF macros around.

And 0.10.0 has been released almost 4 years ago. As far as I know, there
are a lot of improvements to log4cxx in the repository, that haven't
made 
it into a release.

  Torsten

headers

Chris Larsen | 26 Jan 2012 15:10

RE: Is log4cxx still alive?

> You could characterize log4cxx as undead.

I love using Log4cxx and it's been working wonderfully in my apps over the
past couple of years. But I also submitted a patch that was never included.
Maybe the maintainers moved on to other projects and we need to find some
new ones? Anyone want to volunteer?

Sincerely,
Chris Larsen

headers

Palic, Darko | 26 Jan 2012 17:12

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Hello all,

I love log4cxx, because I love log4j and of course log4net.
There do you find a logging component which behaves nearly identically 
with nearly identical config files? And so nearly every platform is 
possible?

BUT, without active release cycles and a willing to integrate user 
provided patches, the community will go away, even if the community 
isn't already gone. From the users perspective the projects seems to be 
dead.
What I am personally doing to check if I would invest effort into a new 
component. I am first checking the release cycles. The second test is to 
analyze the mailing list traffic. The third test is to check how fast 
and often the developers response. Every factor says: the project is dead.
(Anyway I took the log4cxx, but on really long discussions with my 
colleagues)

 From the patching perspective, I have the same experiences like many of 
you. We have also found some bugs, some of them have already been fixed, 
but are only available as patches in the mailing list.

I could provide a patch, there we use shared mem for a high performance 
syncing of multiple processes into one log destination. But I haven't 
even tried it to provide the patch, since bugfixes haven't been 
integrated for years.
We have solved it by making a "private fork" in our private repository, 
there we've integrated the patches of the mailinglist. But this is a 
damn stupid way!

(Continue reading)

headers

Pau Garcia i Quiles | 26 Jan 2012 17:50

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Hi,

Please note I'm not a log4cxx developer.

Given that log4cxx seems to be stalled, why don't you fork it? Just set up a repository at github, Assembla or BitBucket, become the unofficial maintainer and start making releases. After a while, once you have shown you are serious in your effort, you can ask the ASF to be appointed the official maintainer. I'm not talking about Darko specifically, but about any or all of you. Actions instead of complains.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Palic, Darko <darko.palic <at> gmx.de> wrote:

Hello all,

I love log4cxx, because I love log4j and of course log4net.
There do you find a logging component which behaves nearly identically with nearly identical config files? And so nearly every platform is possible?

BUT, without active release cycles and a willing to integrate user provided patches, the community will go away, even if the community isn't already gone. From the users perspective the projects seems to be dead.
What I am personally doing to check if I would invest effort into a new component. I am first checking the release cycles. The second test is to analyze the mailing list traffic. The third test is to check how fast and often the developers response. Every factor says: the project is dead.
(Anyway I took the log4cxx, but on really long discussions with my colleagues)

From the patching perspective, I have the same experiences like many of you. We have also found some bugs, some of them have already been fixed, but are only available as patches in the mailing list.

I could provide a patch, there we use shared mem for a high performance syncing of multiple processes into one log destination. But I haven't even tried it to provide the patch, since bugfixes haven't been integrated for years.
We have solved it by making a "private fork" in our private repository, there we've integrated the patches of the mailinglist. But this is a damn stupid way!

I would like to support log4cxx to enhance by integrating the nightly builds including the integration of Unit-Tests. I can also offer a build platform (hardware and software), if we would reach some limits at apache.org. Here I could provide some knowledge we are already doing for multi platforms. I can also offer to provide the shared mem logging as a patch.

So if the current log4cxx maintainer are willing to open their mind to give some new developers the possibility to commit patches, I am sure the project will again gain velocity. I think it would be pretty easy to find willing new developers to maintain and enhance the code. And if necessary a democratic election for a (existing, or new) project-lead will do the rest.

Just my 2 cents.

bye Darko

On 01/26/2012 03:10 PM, Chris Larsen wrote:

You could characterize log4cxx as undead.

I love using Log4cxx and it's been working wonderfully in my apps over the
past couple of years. But I also submitted a patch that was never included.
Maybe the maintainers moved on to other projects and we need to find some
new ones? Anyone want to volunteer?

Sincerely,
Chris Larsen

--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

headers

Rhys Ulerich | 26 Jan 2012 18:09

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

> Given that log4cxx seems to be stalled, why don't you fork it?

The Apache infrastructure already in place for log4cxx is excellent
Forking it would be a damned shame as we'd lose that.
Plus forking is appropriate when there's a difference of vision,
design, or licensing.  None apply here.  Increasing the number of
committers/maintainers is a much better option, IMHO.

On possible way forward (with the hopes that the developers are
lurking and might bless the idea)...

How about the community plans two minor dot releases?  For 0.11.0
maybe two or three new committers comb the issue tracker for bugfix
patches, apply them, and release.  The current maintainers oversee the
0.11.0 release.  For 0.12.0 maybe those new committers solicit and
review patches from folks like Darko who hasn't prepared them because
he was dissuaded by log4xx's inactivity.  Get one of the new
committers to run the 0.12.0 release process with the current
maintainer's oversight.  After 0.12.0 the maintainers decide if they
want to transfer over to new folks or if they want to stay involved.

- Rhys

headers

Pau Garcia i Quiles | 26 Jan 2012 18:24

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Given that log4cxx seems to be stalled, why don't you fork it?

The Apache infrastructure already in place for log4cxx is excellent
Forking it would be a damned shame as we'd lose that.
Plus forking is appropriate when there's a difference of vision,
design, or licensing. None apply here. Increasing the number of
committers/maintainers is a much better option, IMHO.

On possible way forward (with the hopes that the developers are
lurking and might bless the idea)...

How about the community plans two minor dot releases? For 0.11.0
maybe two or three new committers comb the issue tracker for bugfix
patches, apply them, and release. The current maintainers oversee the
0.11.0 release. For 0.12.0 maybe those new committers solicit and
review patches from folks like Darko who hasn't prepared them because
he was dissuaded by log4xx's inactivity. Get one of the new
committers to run the 0.12.0 release process with the current
maintainer's oversight. After 0.12.0 the maintainers decide if they
want to transfer over to new folks or if they want to stay involved.

- Rhys

Your proposal would work if new committers are accepted.

I don't know the ASF, but I wouldn't accept a new committer unless I'm sure the guy deserves it. That's why I proposed the fork: it's immediate (you can release the first version tomorrow) and it's useful as a playground for potential new committers.

--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

headers

Palic, Darko | 27 Jan 2012 15:55

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Hi developers,

it is really necessary to define the project lead standpoint to the 
community.
Are there plans to integrate the open patches into the main stream? If 
so, what will be the schedule?
Are there plans to open the repository for more contributors? If so, 
what are the requirements for the possible contributors?

The recommendation of Pau Garcia is IMHO one way, which could happen 
right now. But I think it would be the baddest what could happen, if a 
fork will be made.

 <at> project lead: please come to clean. Nothing is more annoying if there 
are problems, but no responses from the lead.

Darko

headers

Palic, Darko | 2 Feb 2012 08:54

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Hello all,

I think there is no more interest from the core development team to 
response to the community. So from my point of view, I am personally 
declaring the project log4cxx as dead - sigh and sigh even more...

I've created a new repo on github, which contains the important svn-repo 
sources.
The fork is available under https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp
I've added the trunk and the current tag to git.
- svn-tag v0_10_0 is https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp/tree/log4cxx_v0_10_0
- svn-trunk is https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp

If someone is willing to join me, I've created a fork. I will add some 
of the patches from the mailinglist what I am already using. Maybe there 
are other patches what would be fine to add to a source distribution.

For the communication I hope we can stay on this mailinglist.

bye

> Hi developers,
>
> it is really necessary to define the project lead standpoint to the 
> community.
> Are there plans to integrate the open patches into the main stream? If 
> so, what will be the schedule?
> Are there plans to open the repository for more contributors? If so, 
> what are the requirements for the possible contributors?
>
> The recommendation of Pau Garcia is IMHO one way, which could happen 
> right now. But I think it would be the baddest what could happen, if a 
> fork will be made.
>
>  <at> project lead: please come to clean. Nothing is more annoying if there 
> are problems, but no responses from the lead.
>
> Darko
>

headers

Thorsten Schöning | 2 Feb 2012 09:06

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Guten Tag Palic, Darko,
am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 um 08:54 schrieben Sie:

> The fork is available under https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp

There already is a log4cpp out there, maybe choose another name?
log4cx, log4cxxx, log4cx2...

http://log4cpp.sourceforge.net/

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

--

-- 
Thorsten Schöning       E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening <at> AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme      http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon.............030-2 1001-310
Fax...............05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hanover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow

headers

Curt Arnold | 3 Feb 2012 07:46

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Sorry about not responding sooner. I'm going to pull the old newborn excuse. everybody is doing well, but no
one is getting much sleep or keeping up with mailing lists.

log4net had a reasonably successful reboot a few months ago. There is a bit of a chicken and egg issue with ASF
development is that granting commit rights requires a history of contributions to the project, but it is
hard to establish that history on a project that not in an active development phase. In the log4net reboot,
an established ASF member and motivated user of log4net (but not an previously active log4net committer)
acted as a SVN clerk and mentor to motivated users without an established history to pushed through the
first official non-incubating release of log4net.

The problematic issue with forking to GitHub is that it can become extraordinarily difficult to migrate
that code back to the ASF since the ASF has very high standards to make sure that all code can be traced back to
the original author and that there is a clear record of their intention to donate the code to the ASF.

I'll write more this weekend.