>From my POV, this will create an incomprehensible mess of versions for users. Big bummer.
Gary On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 04:29 Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > To start the discussion for breaking up the modules into separate projects, > I propose the following structure: > > *logging-log4j* > log4j-1.2-api > log4j-api > log4j-bom > log4j-core > log4j-core-its > log4j-gctests > log4j-iostreams > log4j-layout-template-json > log4j-perf > log4j-plugins > > *logging-log4j-appender* > log4j-cassandra > log4j-couchdb > log4j-csv > log4j-flume-ng > log4j-mongodb3 > log4j-mongodb4 > log4j-smtp > > *logging-log4j-appender-jdbc* > log4j-jdbc (?) > log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 (?) > log4j-jpa > > *logging-log4j-appender-queue* > log4j-jeromq > log4j-jms > log4j-kafka > log4j-redis > > *logging-log4j-binding* > log4j-jcl > log4j-jpl > log4j-jul > log4j-liquibase > log4j-slf4j18-impl > log4j-slf4j-impl > log4j-to-slf4j > > *logging-log4j-container* > log4j-docker > log4j-kubernetes > > *logging-log4j-gui* > log4j-jmx-gui > > *logging-log4j-jee* > log4j-appserver > log4j-taglib > log4j-web > > *logging-log4j-layout-jackson* > log4j-layout-jackson > log4j-layout-jackson-json > log4j-layout-jackson-xml > log4j-layout-jackson-yaml > > *logging-log4j-osgi* > log4j-osgi > > *logging-log4j-spring* > log4j-spring-boot > log4j-spring-cloud-config > > Note that above breakdown contains every available module in master, except > log4j-samples, which has the following sub-modules: > > log4j-samples-loggerProperties (contains 2 very trivial example classes, > log4j-core [tests] contains more comprehensive alternatives) > log4j-samples-flume-remote (flume-specific) > log4j-samples-flume-embedded (flume-specific) > log4j-samples-flume-common (flume-specific) > log4j-samples-configuration (contains 3 very trivial example classes, > log4j-core [tests] contains more comprehensive alternatives) > > I propose removing log4j-samples module and, if necessary, moving > Flume-related parts to the log4j-flume-ng. > > I have kept log4j-layout-template-json in the logging-log4j project, since > it has no external dependencies. This said, I am okay with moving it to a > separate logging-log4j-layout project. > > Please share your remarks. Eventually, I want to translate this into a JIRA > ticket. > > Kind regards. > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:43 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > Gary, > > > > I am -1 to almost every item on your list. > > > > When I said break up I meant mostly moving most everything outside of > > log4j-core, > > log4j-api, and log4j-plugins into separate repos such as > > logging-log4j-nosql, > > logging-log4j-pubsub, etc. These would not require groupId or artifactId > > changes > > although the versioning would potentially be out of synch with the main > > releases > > as each would be on its own release cycle. This would greatly simplify > > releasing > > core but it would require careful though on what the versions would be > for > > the > > “extra” projects. > > > > As for further breaking up core, that should revolve primarily around > > reducing the > > dependencies listed in module-info.java to the bare minimum. > > > > There will be no log4j3. We cannot change groupIds, artifactIds, or > > package names, > > other than what has been done to support JPMS. A world in which a log4j2 > > and > > log4j3 try to co-exist would be an unmitigated disaster. Commons can > > happily get > > away with that. Log4j cannot. > > > > If an application had both log4j2 and log4j3 jars present they would end > > up with > > multiple LoggerContexts, multiple Configurations, and multiple Appender > > Managers > > where today there is only a single one. That would mean two instances of > > the same > > configuration file would be active at once. So when it is time to > rollover > > it would > > be performed twice instead of once as a simple example. For this reason > we > > CANNOT break backward compatibility. > > > > However, we are talking about runtime backward compatibility. The Plugin > > system > > was changed internally in 3.0 so that plugins compiled with 3.0 use > > ServiceLoader > > instead of the data file. However, it will still find and use 2.x plugins > > when they are > > present and can be located. > > > > The meaning of this should be clear. It is 3.0 because to take advantage > > of its > > features you may have to make code changes. But it will tolerate code > that > > was > > compiled for 2.x. > > > > The reasons why it is 3.0 and not a simple upgrade to 2.x are: > > 1. Plugins must be compiled with 3.0 to use the ServiceLoader packaging. > > 2. It requires Java 11. We still need to support Java 8. > > 3. It fully supports JPMS. Release 2.x does not. It is likely that > > applications with > > multiple Module Layers might not be able to find all the plugins. Adding > > full JPMS > > support to 2.x simply isn’t possible. > > 4. It will be introducing new DI injection features not present in 2.x. > > > > Major releases do not imply that you are completely breaking backward > > compatibility. > > They imply that some kind of compatibility is broken, which we are doing > > by > > requiring coding changes to Plugins to compile with 3.0. This means we > > need to > > leave in any classes or methods that existing plugins might have used. It > > means > > we have to continue using our own Supplier unless it can be verified that > > an > > application using the Supplier in 2.x can run with 3.0 even if it is > > converted to > > java.util.function.Supplier. I have no idea if the code the compiler > > generates > > for lambdas actually implements the declared interface or not. > > > > Log4j 3.0 is a major change. But that doesn’t mean we can screw our users > > by > > breaking everything. > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2021, at 6:32 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > These are all IMOs of course, YMMV: > > > - What's the rush to 3.0? > > > > > > - I'm all for breaking up the core and other artifacts into more > > > artifacts based on their dependencies requirement such that depending > > > on Log4j 3 does not "suck in the world", for example, I should be able > > > to depend on a currently non-existent "log4j3-console" and only bring > > > in a tiny bit of code (API, a tiny core, and no plugin system). I did > > > a fair amount of breaking up of various artifacts a while back. > > > > > > - 3.0 is a MAJOR release that gives us the opportunity to drop > > > deprecated APIs and code like our custom functional interfaces: > > > Supplier and so on. If we do not clean up, then there is no point in a > > > major release. Basically, I expect to break binary and source > > > compatibility. > > > > > > - 3.0 must be in a new package namespace and new Maven coordinates. I > > > MUST be able to run Log4j 1, 2, and 3 in the same class loader. I can > > > already run Log4j 1 and 2 side by side which is good. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:47 AM Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Ralph, count me in for such a change. I really want to have separate > > >> sub-projects for such modules. This will extremely speed up > > build/release > > >> times too, which is nowadays of uttermost importance to my peace of > mind > > >> while developing. > > >> > > >> This said, I am reluctant about such a major change when we are this > > close > > >> to the 3.0.0 release. I guess this would definitely postpone the 3.0.0 > > >> release to 2022. This will probably break the backward compatibility > at > > >> least for the artifact groupId, am I wrong? Not to mention that the > > entire > > >> website needs to be adapted to this multi-project setup too. Is there > > >> anything else? > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:31 PM Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yeah - I have proposed moving all these extra integrations to a > > separate > > >>> repo but > > >>> I’ve never gotten consensus. I’d prefer to have a project like > > >>> log4j-pubsub where > > >>> things like JMS, JeroMQ, etc can go live, log4j-nosql for all the > nosql > > >>> modules, etc. > > >>> The problem seems to be that some people believe that we would have > to > > cut > > >>> a > > >>> release of those every time we do a log4j release. > > >>> > > >>> If we were to do that 3.0 would be the right time. > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
