On 21 November 2017 at 04:53, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I also think that we shouldn't consider Chainsaw to be part of, or a > subproject of, Log4j. It should be its own project (within Apache Logging > Services). > I believe that's how it's treated already. It's directly linked on the homepage of <https://logging.apache.org/>, and it's called Apache Chainsaw, not Log4j Chainsaw. > And we should try to not couple it too tightly with Log4j 2. It can depend > on both log4j-api and log4j-core, and use classes like LogEvent from > log4j-core. But maybe we should try to avoid using the configuration > framework in log4j-core (the fact that it now uses the configuration > framework in Log4j 1 makes it considerably harder to migrate away from it). This could present an opportunity to standardize some of the log4j-core APIs that other applications may need as well. -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
