IMO the main repo should contain the stuff 80% (or more) of our user’s use and the stuff that is common across all plugins. So the file appenders and console appenders all belong, probably most of the existing lookups and filters. Since the Syslog Appender probably fits in I would also keep the socket appenders as well.
If it was up to me I would move the following Appenders: Cassandra, Flume, JDBC, JMS, JPA, HTTP, Kafka, NoSQL, SMTP, ZeroMQ/JeroMQ, CouchDB, MongoDB. In addition to those I would move the taglib, imx-gui and samples modules and possibly the perf module. Although it is probably lightly used I would consider keeping the iostreams module, although to be honest I am not sure why it isn’t part of the api module. Ralph > On Jan 22, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm curious: What is threshold where it would be OK to add stuff to the > main repo? > > Gary > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> I don’t see why this work would require 3.0 as we aren’t planning on >> breaking any contracts to do this. >> >> As I’ve said, I am not tied to each plugin having its own repo. I am OK >> with these options; a) each plugin has its own repo and site and is >> released independently, b) we use the plugins repo and move all the more >> lightly used components there. It would have its own site, or c) we group >> plugins by how they are related (RDBMS, NoSQL, “Transport” (Flume or >> similar) with each having its own site. >> >> Obviously I do not consider continuing to add new plugins to the main >> build as one of the options. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This whole conversation just reminds me of all the times in the past I >>> suggested full modularization of the core API/SPI. I think such an effort >>> would make sense in a 3.0 release. >>> >>> In 2.x, perhaps what we can do is define a stable plugin API based on >> what >>> we already have. Since we're still supporting Java 7, I'd suggest we make >>> abstract classes be the stable part of the API since we don't have >> default >>> methods on interfaces here. >>> >>> And yes, the GitBox integration thing sounds neat, particularly for code >>> review, though that's a separate topic entirely. >>> >>> On 22 January 2018 at 00:37, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Ralph Goers < >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am very much against the idea of a single repo. Yes, you can have >>>>> multiple projects in the repo but I am not sure how that can be sanely >>>>> released. I much prefer the model that Maven has taken. They are now >>>> using >>>>> gitbox [1] which seems to allow GitHub to be the primary repo. >>>> >>>> >>>> GitHub is a distracting tangent here IMO. I really like GitHub's code >>>> commenting feature, but it should not matter if we use Apache's Git >> hosted >>>> repos or GitHub's. So I'm not sure why we are mixing GitHub in the >>>> conversation... ;-) >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>>> Every Maven plugin is individually released. Scroll down the link below >>>> to >>>>> the Maven section and you can see all the plugin repos. >>>>> >>>>> The upside to this is that it are: >>>>> 1. It is far easier to perform releases of the individual >>>>> components. >>>>> 2. It is much easier to accept plugin contributions. >>>>> The downsides are: >>>>> 1. A page like https://maven.apache.org/plugins/ < >>>>> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/> is needed to keep track of the >> plugin >>>>> versions. >>>>> 2. It could make sense to have log4j-parent and log4j-bom >>>>> projects. The first to help keep the builds similar and the second to >>>> help >>>>> customers pick up the latest versions. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf <https://gitbox.apache.org/ >>>>> repos/asf> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 21, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am writing this to in an effort to understand how we can manage and >>>>> grow >>>>>> Log4j. I use the term 'grow' not in the 'bigger is better' sense but >>>> more >>>>>> in the maturing sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am prompted to write this by Ralph's comment that log4j-core and the >>>>> main >>>>>> repo is too big and that releases take too long make, partially >>>> prompted >>>>> by >>>>>> my addition of a new module called log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 which currently >>>>>> contains one small class with a dependency on Apache Commons DBCP 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to express my gratitude at Ralph's efforts to revitalized >>>>>> Log4j and performing most release management duties. Thank you Ralph! >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see two main orthogonal issues: >>>>>> - The size of the git repo. >>>>>> - The size of the log4j-core module. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph has proposed that new modules like log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 be moved to >>>>>> another 'plugin' repo. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really dislike this idea: >>>>>> - The plugin repo has never been released. Not that one releases a >> repo >>>>> but >>>>>> you get the point. >>>>>> - How do you keep things in sync between repos and code when we have >> no >>>>>> official 'core' SPI. >>>>>> >>>>>> For my money, we should keep _everything_ in one repo. Good enough for >>>>>> Google, so good enough for me. What we release out of that repo is a >>>>>> different story and what I would like to discuss next. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not the same as Maven plugins IMO but the case could be made >>>> for >>>>> it >>>>>> I suppose where a lot/most plugins live in their own repos. It is not >>>> the >>>>>> same as with Maven IMO because our plugins rely on log4j-core and it's >>>>>> guts, for which we only make loose compatibility guarantees -- as >>>> opposed >>>>>> to log4j-core where we are strict(er). Maven OTOH, has a API for >> plugin >>>>>> auteurs. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 replies on the guts of log4j-core and we >>>>> have >>>>>> no 'official' core SPI, so splitting it off into a separate repo would >>>>>> greatly increase the risk of it falling out of sync. It is just so >> much >>>>>> more easier to maintain when it is all in one repo. >>>>>> >>>>>> My proposal is to: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Put everything back into one repo (Chainsaw too?) >>>>>> - Define a core SPI for plugin writers where we make some statement >>>> about >>>>>> BC, more than the casual 'we try not break stuff.' >>>>>> - Defining what Log4j project 'components' we have and release based >> on >>>>>> that. For example, today, all of the main Log4j repo is one component >>>>> with >>>>>> many modules. Chainsaw would be another component of the Log4j >> project. >>>>>> Maybe we need to redefine components: API, File, JDBC and so on. A >>>>>> component can have one of more module >>>>>> - Got for there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Help me flush this out? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for reading! >>>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> >>
