Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?

Thanks,
Nick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Gary Gregory-4
I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?

Thanks,
Nick
                                         



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.

Thanks,
Nick


Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?

Thanks,
Nick
                                         



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Gary Gregory-4
Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some kind?

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.

Thanks,
Nick

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.



I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?



Thanks,

Nick



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
                                         



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
Not sure.  I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be.  I wasn't expecting *huge*.  And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting point?

Thanks,
Nick


Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some kind?

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.

Thanks,
Nick

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.



I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?



Thanks,

Nick



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
                                         



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Gary Gregory-4
It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the infrastructure underneath it all...

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not sure.  I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be.  I wasn't expecting *huge*.  And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting point?

Thanks,
Nick

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some kind?
Gary
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.



Thanks,

Nick



Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700

Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

CC: [hidden email]



I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.







I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?







Thanks,



Nick







--

E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]

Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

JUnit in Action, Second Edition

Spring Batch in Action

Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com

Home: http://garygregory.com/

Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
                                         



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge.  But I guess you're saying it would be a huge effort.

Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.

I was assuming you could do it in phases.  Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.

Thanks,
Nick

> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700

> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
>
> It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the
> infrastructure underneath it all...
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I
> > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only
> > consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting
> > point?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> > Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some
> > kind?
> > Gary
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just
> > don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be
> > interested in "patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to
> > port log4j2. I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: [hidden email]
> >
> > To: [hidden email]
> >
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> > there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > significant changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become
> > more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Anthony Francisco

The old db4o project used a tool

On September 16, 2015 8:58:28 PM Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge.  But I guess you're saying it would be a huge effort.

Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.

I was assuming you could do it in phases.  Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.

Thanks,
Nick

> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700

> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
>
> It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the
> infrastructure underneath it all...
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I
> > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only
> > consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting
> > point?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> > Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some
> > kind?
> > Gary
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just
> > don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be
> > interested in "patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to
> > port log4j2. I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: [hidden email]
> >
> > To: [hidden email]
> >
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> > there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > significant changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become
> > more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Anthony Francisco
In reply to this post by Nicholas Duane

The old db4o project used a automated tool as part of their build to translate their Java code into C#. I can't look up the tool right now, but I think it was called Sharpen.

-Ants

On September 16, 2015 8:58:28 PM Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge.  But I guess you're saying it would be a huge effort.

Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.

I was assuming you could do it in phases.  Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.

Thanks,
Nick

> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700

> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
>
> It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the
> infrastructure underneath it all...
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I
> > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only
> > consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting
> > point?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> > Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some
> > kind?
> > Gary
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just
> > don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be
> > interested in "patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to
> > port log4j2. I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: [hidden email]
> >
> > To: [hidden email]
> >
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> > there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > significant changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become
> > more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Gary Gregory-4
In reply to this post by Nicholas Duane
Maybe helpful:http://codecall.net/2014/03/27/best-tools-to-convert-java-to-c-source-code/

Gary


-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]>
Date: 09/16/2015 17:58 (GMT-08:00)
To: Log4J Users List <[hidden email]>
Cc: Log4NET User <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge.  But I guess you're saying it would be a huge effort.

Not sure if there are good java to c# translators and even if there is what other hurdles you might run into trying to port via a translator, e.g. platform specific code.

I was assuming you could do it in phases.  Maybe the code is somewhat layered so that the "core" could be ported without too much difficulty.

Thanks,
Nick

> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:19:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
>
> It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the
> infrastructure underneath it all...
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Not sure.  I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be.  I
> > wasn't expecting *huge*.  And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only
> > consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting
> > point?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> > Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some
> > kind?
> > Gary
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was debating offering to help.  Not that I wouldn't be interested, just
> > don't know how much time I could commit.  Also, not sure I would be
> > interested in "patching" log4net.  In my mind the best approach would be to
> > port log4j2.  I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level
> > values, configuration syntax, appenders, filters and extensibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:25:19 -0700
> >
> > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> >
> > From: [hidden email]
> >
> > To: [hidden email]
> >
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> >
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
> > there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > significant changes in the 2.0 version?  Any chance log4net might become
> > more of a "port" of log4j(2) and thus be more similar?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> >
> > Spring Batch in Action
> >
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> > Spring Batch in Action
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
    
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Gary Gregory-4
On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:

> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

> Gary

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

>> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
>> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
>> significant changes in the 2.0 version?

> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

This is certainly part of the reason.  log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago.  The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).

Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest.  Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.

[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E

Stefan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>
> >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> >> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Dominik Psenner

Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to start off log4net2.

So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing generated code.

The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!

Cheers

On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>
> >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> >> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Nicholas Duane
To answer your last question, at the ASF the project committers decide what they are going to do. They make decisions by discussing their ideas on the mailing list.  In some ways, the ASF is a “do-ocracy”. You can make all the recommendations you want, but ultimately it is up to whoever implements it.


Ralph




On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200

On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:

"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
significant changes in the 2.0 version?

I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

This is certainly part of the reason.  log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago.  The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).

Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest.  Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.

[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
I'll take a look at the link.  So if I'm interested in helping, if in fact the goal is to port log4j2 to .net, then how do I know whether anyone who would make that decision is even thinking about that, if they are thinking about it how do I know if they've decided to move forward, and when that decision takes place?  Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?

Thanks,
Nick


Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
CC: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]

To answer your last question, at the ASF the project committers decide what they are going to do. They make decisions by discussing their ideas on the mailing list.  In some ways, the ASF is a “do-ocracy”. You can make all the recommendations you want, but ultimately it is up to whoever implements it.


Ralph




On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200

On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:

"Patches welcome" is my motto :-)

Gary

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.

I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
significant changes in the 2.0 version?

I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.

This is certainly part of the reason.  log4net was started as a port of
1.x a long time ago.  The developers (long before I joined) added some
deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
configuration).

Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
list[1] and some people expressed interest.  Any hand that can offer
some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.

[1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
In reply to this post by Dominik Psenner
"So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2."

While that sounds like it could mean a port I guess it doesn't necessarily mean it is a port.  I guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.  I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.  As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.

For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite between log4j and log4net.  If I was porting I would certainly not have thought to reverse the scale.  Well who knows, maybe there was a reason, but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2 reversed it scale from log4j1.

Thanks,
Nick


Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]

Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to start off log4net2.

So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing generated code.

The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!

Cheers

On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>
> >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> >> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Dominik Psenner
See inline..

2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]>:
"So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2."

While that sounds like it could mean a port I guess it doesn't necessarily mean it is a port.  I guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.

What afterthought? Which fate?
 
  I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.

That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible from log4j2.
 
  As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar. 

Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer is:

It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and "what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it is done" is among them).

But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase your point, please?
 

For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite between log4j and log4net.  If I was porting I would certainly not have thought to reverse the scale.  Well who knows, maybe there was a reason, but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2 reversed it scale from log4j1.

This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost random samples:

level, log4j, log4net
ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
DEBUG, 10000, 30000
INFO, 20000, 40000
WARN, 30000, 60000
ERROR, 40000, 70000
FATAL, 50000, 110000
OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648

I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as issue LOG4NET-476.

Cheers


Thanks,
Nick


Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
CC: [hidden email]


Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and interpreter that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep learning curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on log4j and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things and the support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire to start off log4net2.

So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and bugfixing generated code.

The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!

Cheers

On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.

In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.

I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.

I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?

Thanks,
Nick

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> > Gary
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>
> >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> >> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
Dominik Psenner
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Nicholas Duane
Nick,

You ask and discuss on the dev list.  The number of developers isn’t that large so it should be readily apparent if there is interest.  That said, Log4j 1.x was pretty dormant when I started working on Log4j 2. I worked for almost 18 months before I committed anything just because I wasn’t really sure about anything. After I had something to talk about I committed it to an experimental branch where others could start contributing their ideas.  I think that has worked out pretty well.

Since you don’t currently have commit rights you might either start something on github or it may be possible to create a new git repo for log4net 2 and give you access to that. That would be a bit unusual but not unheard of.

Ralph


> On Sep 18, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'll take a look at the link.  So if I'm interested in helping, if in fact the goal is to port log4j2 to .net, then how do I know whether anyone who would make that decision is even thinking about that, if they are thinking about it how do I know if they've decided to move forward, and when that decision takes place?  Do I just put my name on a "waiting list"?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:25:40 -0700
> CC: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
>
> To answer your last question, at the ASF the project committers decide what they are going to do. They make decisions by discussing their ideas on the mailing list.  In some ways, the ASF is a “do-ocracy”. You can make all the recommendations you want, but ultimately it is up to whoever implements it.
> Take a look at http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:I looked over the thread you included below.  I can't tell from that whether the suggestion was to port log4j2.  Not sure if the comment about starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port of log4j2.
>
> In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows.  Of course it would also be great if the releases were synchronized.  I know a big gripe of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
>
> I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync with log4j2.  And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the easiest and safest path to the goal.
>
> I haven't worked on any open source project in the past.  I'm curious, how does this work?  Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
>
> On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
>
> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)?  Is it because
> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
>
> I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
>
> This is certainly part of the reason.  log4net was started as a port of
> 1.x a long time ago.  The developers (long before I joined) added some
> deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> configuration).
>
> Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> list[1] and some people expressed interest.  Any hand that can offer
> some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
>
> [1] thread starting with http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>    
>    


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Nicholas Duane
In reply to this post by Dominik Psenner
By afterthought I mean that log4net appears to be a second class citizen, compared to log4j.  It appears it was a snapshot, eg one time port, after which it hasn't got much attention.

The fate it's suffering is people moving away from it, or maybe not even adopting it to begin with because of the lack of investment, in terms of features and fixes.  I've seen several posts along these lines.  It appears some have adopted nlog just because of the lack of activity on log4net.

Yeah, that one sentence is a bit confusing.  What I meant was that log4net, being a second class citizen, would maybe get features that were added to log4j if there were resources available.  Maybe not.  And maybe the features would be a port or instead implemented somewhat differently.  This last part may not be true.  As I mentioned, I see big differences between log4net and log4j2 so maybe that's because log4j and log4j2 are very different and maybe log4net was similar to log4j.

In terms of the levels, either the scales are reversed, or they have been reversed between log4j and log4j2.  OFF in log4j2 is 0, ALL is int.maxvalue.  OFF in log4net is 0x7fffffff (int.maxvalue) and ALL is 0x80000000 (int.minvalue).  This means that more specific in log4j2 is < or <= and less specific is > or >=.  It's the opposite in log4net.

Don't get me wrong, I see no problem in log4net being a second class citizen.  If the target platform for your architecture and design is linux/java and the majority of the resources you have a java resources, then that makes perfect sense.  However, the result (in terms of log4net), of course, will be what has happened.

I'm not sure how the log4j, log4j2 and log4net groups are related.  I'm not sure if it works this way, but I see that the apache logging framework can be an architecture/design or specification which can be realized on different platform/languages.  So you might have one group working on the architecture/design and several other groups providing the different implementations.

Thanks,
Nick

> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:00:05 +0200

> Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>
> See inline..
>
> 2015-09-18 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]>:
>
> > "So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> > that has been generated within log4j2."
> >
> > While that sounds like it could mean a port I guess it doesn't necessarily
> > mean it is a port. I guess I'm focusing on "port" because it seems as if
> > log4net is an afterthought it will again suffer the same fate.
> >
>
> What afterthought? Which fate?
>
>
> > I'm thinking that there is an overall architecture and design that is
> > platform agnostic and should plan to go to both platforms.
> >
>
> That's what I meant with log4net2 should take as much knowledge as possible
> from log4j2.
>
>
> > As opposed to going to one and then if resources are available it might
> > make it to the other, and if it does it might not be that similar.
> >
>
> Apologies, it's quite late in my timezone and I seem to be unable to wrap
> my head around this sentence. :-) If it means what I interpreted the answer
> is:
>
> It has been and will always be something between "what it should be" and
> "what gets done". With more time (in the meaning of working time and thus
> hours of spare time) there is more room for "what gets done" and thus help
> is always welcome. :-) Getting involved further puts you in the position to
> decide "what gets done" with even a few more options (the cool one "how it
> is done" is among them).
>
> But if the meaning is something else, would you be so kind and rephrase
> your point, please?
>
>
> >
> > For instance, I was surprised to see that the level scale is opposite
> > between log4j and log4net. If I was porting I would certainly not have
> > thought to reverse the scale. Well who knows, maybe there was a reason,
> > but I can't think of a good reason why that would happen unless log4j2
> > reversed it scale from log4j1.
> >
>
> This is not entirely true and not at all that dramatic. The scale is
> different, yes, but not inversed. Here comes a comparison of a few almost
> random samples:
>
> level, log4j, log4net
> ALL; -2147483648, -2147483648
> DEBUG, 10000, 30000
> INFO, 20000, 40000
> WARN, 30000, 60000
> ERROR, 40000, 70000
> FATAL, 50000, 110000
> OFF, 2147483648, 2147483648
>
> I did not know this, but the log level constants should be the same across
> all members of the ASF logging family and therefore I've queued this as
> issue LOG4NET-476.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:20:46 +0200
> > Subject: RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > CC: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > Given that both c# and java are very similar in both syntax and
> > interpreter that runs the bytecode, users of log4j can expect a very steep
> > learning curve when starting with log4net. Despite that log4net is based on
> > log4j and thus may lack some things found in log4j2. These missing things
> > and the support for ancient versions of the .net framework caused my desire
> > to start off log4net2.
> >
> > So, yes, log4net2 should be based on log4j2 and reuse all the knowledge
> > that has been generated within log4j2. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
> >
> > All this can be achieved only with a rewrite. Im no fan of code
> > generators, therefore, translating java to c# will be no option to me. In
> > the end we would probably have to invest more time in analyzing and
> > bugfixing generated code.
> >
> > The downside of a rewrite is that it is a lot of work and thus it takes
> > time. I can invest about an hour a week. Currently this hour goes into
> > responding questions on both user and dev mailingist. To make this real a
> > lot of helping hands will be required. Volunteers are welcome!
> >
> > Cheers
> > On 18 Sep 2015 4:32 pm, "Nicholas Duane" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I looked over the thread you included below. I can't tell from that
> > whether the suggestion was to port log4j2. Not sure if the comment about
> > starting log4net 2.0 "from scratch" is an indication of having it be a port
> > of log4j2.
> >
> > In my mind the biggest benefit would be to have the same
> > architecture/feature set running on both linux and windows. Of course it
> > would also be great if the releases were synchronized. I know a big gripe
> > of log4net is that it's not getting rev'd.
> >
> > I would be interested in helping if the goal is to bring log4net in sync
> > with log4j2. And by this I guess I mean port as that would seem the
> > easiest and safest path to the goal.
> >
> > I haven't worked on any open source project in the past. I'm curious, how
> > does this work? Who's coordinating and making the decisions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > > Subject: Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:25:00 +0200
> > >
> > > On 2015-09-17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Patches welcome" is my motto :-)
> > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists.
> > >
> > > >> I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because
> > > >> there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had
> > > >> significant changes in the 2.0 version?
> > >
> > > > I think I read somewhere that log4net was a port of log4j 1.
> > >
> > > This is certainly part of the reason. log4net was started as a port of
> > > 1.x a long time ago. The developers (long before I joined) added some
> > > deviations that look closer to what log4j 2 is doing (XML
> > > configuration).
> > >
> > > Incidently Dominik started a discussion about log4net 2.0 on the dev
> > > list[1] and some people expressed interest. Any hand that can offer
> > > some help is more than welcome, so please come over and join.
> > >
> > > [1] thread starting with
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3C03be01d0da4f%24a85aaa10%24f90ffe30%24%40apache.org%3E
> > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201508.mbox/%3c03be01d0da4f$a85aaa10$f90ffe30$%40apache.org%3e>
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dominik Psenner
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Stefan Bodewig
On 2015-09-19, Nicholas Duane wrote:

> I'm not sure how the log4j, log4j2 and log4net groups are related.

The people developing log4j and the people developing log4net are
separate teams - and have always been.  The other log4XYZ-es (everything
not log4j) have been inspired by log4j but they've never been started by
the log4j folks because they wanted to reach beyond the Java platform.

> I'm not sure if it works this way, but I see that the apache logging
> framework can be an architecture/design or specification which can be
> realized on different platform/languages.

This is not how things happened historically.

It might even be a bad idea if such an approach forced you to base the
architecture on the least common denominator of your target platforms -
I'm not sure.

Stefan
12