That stuff is all there because the site plugin requires it. Once we aren’t
using that I am fine with pulling it.
Ralph
> On Mar 29, 2022, at 12:46 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> Today we had a chat with Christian and we are inclined to remove (when
> proceeding with the revamping of the site ge
Today we had a chat with Christian and we are inclined to remove (when
proceeding with the revamping of the site generation gig of mine) the
following information from pom.xml files:
- issueManagement (Why would anybody check pom.xml for this? We have a
website and README pointing to JIRA fo
I don’t know if any new javax APIs are defined anymore. There’s JakartaEE for
the new APIs, though that’s through Eclipse at this point I think.
Also, for a generic plugin library, there are some things I’d likely do
slightly differently than in here since backward compatibility wouldn’t be
rel
It's just a question, not a request.
Gary
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 03:31 Ralph Goers wrote:
> Gary,
>
> The work for this was covered in LOG4J2-2621 which was resolved in
> June 2019 and discussed on the dev list a few times. It is a little late
> to
> be asking that question.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On M
Gary,
The work for this was covered in LOG4J2-2621 which was resolved in
June 2019 and discussed on the dev list a few times. It is a little late to
be asking that question.
Ralph
> On Mar 28, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Why isn't the code in log4-plugins in log4
Yes, I would really like to see the plugin system moved to something like
Commons Plugins. Of course, it would be even better as javax.plugins! Of
course, moving it does mean users will now be required to include log4j-plugins
in addition to log4j-api and log4j-core. However, I don’t necessaril
