Enrico, I agree with you and that was what I meant. To be clear: 4.14.3 and older: Log4J 1 4.14.5 and 4.14.6...: Reload4J 4.15.0 and next: Log4J2
Nicolò Boschi Il giorno ven 1 apr 2022 alle ore 14:51 Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I prefer Log4J2, Reload4J is really a hack to have Log41 compatibility > (and it is not 100% compatible) > Log4j1 has many problems, and this is why Apache Logging started a > brand new project. > > It is okay to use Reload4J on old branches in which we cannot break > compatibility, but for new releases we should move to Log4j2 > > > > Enrico > > Il giorno ven 1 apr 2022 alle ore 14:41 Nicolò Boschi > <boschi1...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Hi all, > > A couple of months ago we removed the usage of Log4J in favor of Log4J2 ( > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2816). > > These changes have only been done for the master branch (and actually > > 4.15.0) > > > > We're still bundling Log4J for the 4.14 line. > > I propose to move to Reload4J (https://reload4j.qos.ch/) because it is > > maintained and it offers the easiest migration path from Log4J. > > > > I'd like to do that before releasing 4.14.5 > > I already sent a pull and I verified that it works correctly > > Pull: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3167 > > > > Please review and discuss it. > > > > Nicolò Boschi >
