Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

Lol. Ok An app running in Java 11. That changes nothing. We can certainly make some incompatible changes but as we have previously discussed some of the things you removed will have to be reverted. Making Log4J 3 not backward compatible would be a disaster. Ralph > On Apr 18, 2022, at 5:07 PM,

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

"an app will certainly be able to replace their 2.x jars with 3.x jars and continue to work" Certainly not since 3.x requires Java 11. Gary On Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 18:19 Ralph Goers wrote: > I have no idea what you are referring to. > > You are talking about having log4j 2 and log4j 3 jars prese

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 18:19 Ralph Goers wrote: > I have no idea what you are referring to. > > You are talking about having log4j 2 and log4j 3 jars present in the > application > at the same time? You can no more do that than you can have a > log4j-core.2.17.1 > jar and a log4j-core-2.17.2 jar o

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

I have no idea what you are referring to. You are talking about having log4j 2 and log4j 3 jars present in the application at the same time? You can no more do that than you can have a log4j-core.2.17.1 jar and a log4j-core-2.17.2 jar on the classpath at the same time. But an app will certain

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

How can they coexist when they use the same package names? This is why I want to use a different package name root for 3.x, like org.apache.log4j3 or something like that. On Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 17:07 Ralph Goers wrote: > Gary, that really doesn’t say anything. 2.x and 3.x are already designed > t

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

Sorry, it occurs to me that you may be implying that stuff written for 3.x should also work in 2.x. That would be a bit strange from a semantic versioning standpoint. In addition, because we have moved the plugin support to its own module in 3.x stuff written for it can’t compile in 2.x. Howe

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

Gary, that really doesn’t say anything. 2.x and 3.x are already designed to be able to coexist. Ralph > On Apr 18, 2022, at 10:50 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > For my 2c, the better internals are not going to motivate the majority of > users to update to 3.0, features are. It might be different

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

For my 2c, the better internals are not going to motivate the majority of users to update to 3.0, features are. It might be different for plugin authors, but how many of those are there? My guess is a minuscule amount. I agree that 2.x should live for a long long time, and should be able to coexist

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

> On Apr 18, 2022, at 9:21 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > Thanks for your prompt reply Pitor, but I think we have a misunderstanding > here. > > For one, my problem is not simply about `@RequiredClass`, Jackson, etc. I > can solve this with a hardcoded if/else clause in JTL. My point is: there

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

See below. > On Apr 18, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:17 AM Ralph Goers > > wrote: > >>> On Apr 17, 2022, at 10:42 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >>> Thanks for raising this subject Matt, I am certainly interested in >> port

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

Thanks for your prompt reply Pitor, but I think we have a misunderstanding here. For one, my problem is not simply about `@RequiredClass`, Jackson, etc. I can solve this with a hardcoded if/else clause in JTL. My point is: there are places in the code where plugins are loaded, they all employ diff

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

Hi Volcan, On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 22:42, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >1. I was working on LOG4J2-3082 (support external serializers, e.g., >Jackson, in JTL) and there I needed `@RequiredClass`. Ralph already >implemented this in `master`, I just need to copy it to `release-2.x`, >after

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:17 AM Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2022, at 10:42 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > Thanks for raising this subject Matt, I am certainly interested in > porting > > the plugin system in 3.x to 2.x for a very simple reason: because plugins > > are broken in 2.x. Let me

Re: Considering porting DI to 2.x

> On Apr 17, 2022, at 10:42 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > Thanks for raising this subject Matt, I am certainly interested in porting > the plugin system in 3.x to 2.x for a very simple reason: because plugins > are broken in 2.x. Let me elaborate on this and some more: > > 1. I was working o