[logback-user] 1.0 release date?

Ralph Goers rgoers at apache.org
Sun Sep 5 16:52:57 CEST 2010


I think you are using the wrong criteria. SLF4J and Logback are certainly production ready. I have projects using them in production systems.  The version number is not a great way to determine that. IMO, what is more important is the health of the community and availability of support. In some ways this community is very healthy as there is a fair amount of activity on the mailing lists.  However, with only a single person with commit access you do need to be aware that there is a serious supportability problem with SLF4J and Logback.  However, I am sure Ceki is willing to accept contracts to fix any bugs you might encounter. You can also ask the rest of us for help, but the best we can do  is to fix the bug in a fork somewhere and try to get Ceki to incorporate it.

Having said that, the situation with Log4j isn't a lot better at the moment. Log4j 1.2 is ancient and has severe problems and Log4j 2.0 is still in the stages of experimental code.

Ralph

On Sep 5, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Ari Meyer wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> I am not trying to argue with you.  Please re-read what I wrote.  I am simpy saying that many organizations will not allow, except for very special circumstances, software components that are in alpha/beta stages of development (or appear to be so, as is the case with sub-1.0 releases) to be deployed to their servers.  If some mission-critical software has dependencies on pre-1.0 releases, that cannot be avoided.  But I cannot justify to my management the use of a pre-1.0 logback when log4j/SLF4J is still sufficient for most purposes.  This has nothing to do with marketing nor what I personally value.  And yes, of course I know who Ceki is and respect all that he has done, and I have used (and made small contributions to) log4j and SLF4J since their early releases.
> 
> Again, thanks to Ceki and all contributors,
> Ari
> 
> Jeff Jensen wrote:
>> 
>> I may be right?  Just look at the Logback home page and see a few projects using it, e.g. SpringSource’s dm Server.
>>  
>> You place too much value in a marketing thing – a release number!
>>  
>> You are also confusing authors of work – I am a fan and user of SLF4J and Logback.  All credit goes to Ceki and associates.
>>  
>> For stability concerns, you should review the Logback history with its genesis from Log4j.  You do know Ceki, the Logback founder, is also the founder of Log4j?
>>  
>> ‘nuff said…
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: logback-user-bounces at qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces at qos.ch] On Behalf Of Ari Meyer
>> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:26 PM
>> To: logback users list
>> Subject: Re: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
>>  
>> Hi Jeff,
>>  
>> You may be right about that (though I haven't seen it pulled down as a dependency for my Maven builds, yet...), but large organizations often don't see things the way you and I do.  They won't ditch an acceptable, stable log4j for what *appears* to be a beta.  After over 4 years of active development, though, it seems reasonable to expect multiple full releases of something as relatively small in scope as a logging framework.  The fact that we don't see a 1.0 yet perhaps indicates over-perfectionism.  This often happens with other OSS projects (JDOM being a notable case of this, as I remember).  For our sake, please just get to a reasonably stable build and label it "1.0".  We'll expect bug fixes and minor API changes, of course, as that's natural, and new features can be released incrementally.
>>  
>> Are there some must-have features that have yet to be implemented?  It would be nice if the FAQ were updated for this, along with a high-level road map.
>>  
>> Thanks for all for the hard work!
>> Ari
>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Jeff Jensen <jjensen at apache.org> wrote:
>> Just because the release number begins with a value < 1 doesn't mean it is
>> in beta.  Lots and lots of products around the world use SLF4J and Logback
>> in production operations, and I bet including some of the FOS frameworks you
>> are using!
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: logback-user-bounces at qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces at qos.ch] On
>> Behalf Of Ari Meyer
>> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:09 AM
>> To: logback-user at qos.ch
>> Subject: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We'd like to switch from log4j to logback, but can't use beta releases.
>> logback has been in development for over 4 years now -- any idea when
>> we'll see a 1.0 release?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ari
>> _______________________________________________
>> Logback-user mailing list
>> Logback-user at qos.ch
>> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Logback-user mailing list
>> Logback-user at qos.ch
>> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Logback-user mailing list
>> Logback-user at qos.ch
>> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> Logback-user mailing list
> Logback-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://qos.ch/pipermail/logback-user/attachments/20100905/7b656443/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Logback-user mailing list