Ralph Goers | 6 Feb 00:02 2012

Log4J 2

As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of
code with fairly decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my experimental branch and onto its
own main branch where others will hopefully feel more inclined to participate.  Although this shouldn't
surprise anyone and I could probably do this without forewarning, I consider it good manners to give
adequate notice.

Ralph
Christian Grobmeier | 6 Feb 00:04 2012
Picon

Re: Log4J 2

Yay, this are great news!!!!
Congratulations! On the hard work, on the outcome and that you didn't
give up! Welcome to the main branch :-)

Cheers!

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers <at> dslextreme.com> wrote:
> As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years now.  It now consists of a fairly large
body of code with fairly decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my experimental branch and
onto its own main branch where others will hopefully feel more inclined to participate.  Although this
shouldn't surprise anyone and I could probably do this without forewarning, I consider it good manners to
give adequate notice.
>
> Ralph

--

-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

Stefan Bodewig | 6 Feb 10:10 2012
Picon

Re: Log4J 2

On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:

> As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
> now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
> decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
> experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
> hopefully feel more inclined to participate.

For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.

Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
haven't looked for one, yet.

Thanks

        Stefan

Christian Grobmeier | 6 Feb 10:24 2012
Picon

Re: Log4J 2

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig <at> apache.org> wrote:
> On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
>> now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
>> decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
>> experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
>> hopefully feel more inclined to participate.
>
> For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
> of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
> other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
> to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.
>
> Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
> haven't looked for one, yet.

Great idea, could use that too. With the approaching ApacheCon EU I
think it would be a great talk there.

Cheers
Christian

> Thanks
>
>        Stefan

--

-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
(Continue reading)

Ralph Goers | 6 Feb 17:56 2012

Re: Log4J 2


On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:

As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
hopefully feel more inclined to participate.

For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.

Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
haven't looked for one, yet.

You can find the latest documentation at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/

Ralph
Mark Struberg | 18 Feb 21:14 2012
Picon

Re: Log4J 2


+1 for bringing log4j-2.0 to the surface of the earth :)

LieGrue,
strub

>________________________________
> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers <at> dslextreme.com>
>To: Logging General <general <at> logging.apache.org> 
>Cc: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev <at> logging.apache.org> 
>Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 5:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Log4J 2
> 
>
>
>
>On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>
>>As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
>>>
>>now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
>>>
>>decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
>>>
>>experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
>>>
>>hopefully feel more inclined to participate.
>>>
>>For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
>>of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
>>other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
>>to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.
>>
>>Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
>>haven't looked for one, yet.
>>
>
>You can find the latest documentation at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/
>
>
>Ralph
>
>
Ralph Goers | 19 Feb 00:11 2012

Re: Log4J 2

Thanks - I moved the code to https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/trunk.

Ralph

On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:

> 
> 
> +1 for bringing log4j-2.0 to the surface of the earth :)
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers <at> dslextreme.com>
>> To: Logging General <general <at> logging.apache.org> 
>> Cc: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev <at> logging.apache.org> 
>> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 5:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: Log4J 2
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> 
>> On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
>>>> 
>>> now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
>>>> 
>>> decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
>>>> 
>>> experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
>>>> 
>>> hopefully feel more inclined to participate.
>>>> 
>>> For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
>>> of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
>>> other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
>>> to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.
>>> 
>>> Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
>>> haven't looked for one, yet.
>>> 
>> 
>> You can find the latest documentation at http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/
>> 
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe <at> logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help <at> logging.apache.org
> 

Gmane