Changing package names would require every user of the Log4j API to have to change their code. We are not going to do that to our users. That is one of the reasons folks have stuck with Log4j 1.x for so long. I would be -1 on any changes that require that.
Ralph > On Dec 30, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well. we should clean up our APIs now that we are on Java 8 and probably > 11. For example, delete org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier and use > java.util.function.Supplier. Fold all interfaces and classes postfixed with > "2" into their superclass. All of this will break BC which is what a major > version change allows us to do. All of this means a new package name and > Maven coordinates to avoid jar hell. > > Gary > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:01 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> We would only need to do that if the versions are incompatible. Maven >> won’t let you have two versions of log4j-api or log4j-core. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Dec 30, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Another thing for 3.0 is when to change the package name so you can have >>> 2.x and 3.x in the same class loader without things blowing left and >> right. >>> Just like you can have 1.x and 2.x at the same time. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 14:47 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> If we are going to deprecate them we need to announce that in the next >>>> release. I know JSONLayout is being used because we have people >> complain >>>> about it. If we do that we should have at least 6 months before 3.0 is >>>> released and 2.x and 3.0 are going to both be active for a while. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On Dec 30, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My motivation for dropping these modules are not merely due to the new >>>>> JsonTemplateLayout, though rather reducing the maintenance burden. I >>>>> "hypothesise" they are not used. For one, I cannot imagine a single use >>>>> case for YAML layout. Second, AbstractJacksonLayout renders stack >> traces >>>> in >>>>> a nested fashion — i.e., nested objects for JsonLayout, nested XML >>>> elements >>>>> for XmlLayout. Such arbitrarily nested structures are difficult to >>>> interact >>>>> with and no storage engine that I know of is able to index them >>>>> sufficiently. Hence, given the way stack traces are rendered, I am >> pretty >>>>> confident that nobody is looking at them. >>>>> >>>>> If there is anybody out there using JsonLayout, I presume they can >> easily >>>>> migrate to JsonTemplateLayout without breaking a sweat. If we receive >>>>> complaints regarding XML and YAML layouts, we can re-introduce them >>>> easily. >>>>> 3.0.0 release is a good opportunity to deprecate these modules. >> Otherwise >>>>> we will need to maintain them for another ~5 years. >>>>> >>>>> @Gary, is it possible for you to figure out who was using XmlLayout? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:38 AM Ralph Goers < >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Volkan, I am fine with deleting those modules however that would >> require >>>>>> that you make sure that you replace the existing Layouts with ones >> that >>>> use >>>>>> JsonTemplateLayout templates, take the same configuration parameters >> and >>>>>> produce the same results. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, when people move from 2.x to 3.x we want to minimize >> the >>>>>> changes they have to make to their applications. All existing >>>>>> configurations should continue to work. Custom Plugins should require >>>>>> recompilation but nothing more. Hopefully that would cover 95% of our >>>> users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 2020, at 2:52 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I propose deleting all the following 4 modules from master: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> log4j-layout-jackson >>>>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-json >>>>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-xml >>>>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-yaml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The most (only?) used one, JsonLayout, is, IMHO, superseded by >>>>>>> JsonTemplateLayout. The rest, I believe, is not even used. If we >> happen >>>>>> to >>>>>>> receive requests, we can consider adding them again. Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *P.S.* No, I did not forget about the report on Online Drinks #1. I >>>> will >>>>>> do >>>>>>> that sometime this week. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
