Hi all,
@Ismael
As I stated in the KIP (see subsection 2 of 'Motivation'), the log4j
community's implementation can't be an alternative for the existing
'log4j-appender' users since their message format is different, breaking
the related, already running pipelines.
Add to this, the log4j appender can be best maintained when log4j2 and
Kafka versions are updated together. (see subsection 1 of 'Motivation'.)
@Israel
Then, you mean instead of creating a new artifact ('log4j2-appender'), just
substituting the traditional artifact ('log4j-appender') with a new
implementation would be better. Do I understand correctly?
After all, one main reason I hurried this proposal is that for the
VerifiableLog4jAppender tool, we can't entirely remove log4j 1.x artifact
from the classpath - making classpath logic more complex. (see here
<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7898/commits/f56f491e68ef2a976c0e3331a48dd881b74a06b3>
for KIP-653
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2>
and here
<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10244/commits/b66fce3d04e005b1eaeae006d78bd8e698f417c6>
for KIP-719
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender>
.)
@Boojapho, @Konstantine
Thanks for the voting. Currently:
- binding: +1 (Konstantine)
- non-binding: +1 (Boojapho)
Regards,
Dongjin
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Israel Ekpo <israele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like some of the language in the KIP is suggesting that the Kafka
> Dev community is going to provide the log4j2 equivalent and would be
> responsible for maintaining it: “ User-interfacing configurations (like
> broker logging config), provide additional log4j2-equivalent configuration
> with backward compatibility”
>
> I think the external dependencies should just be used as is from the
> original project to minimize overhead. Trying to recreate an external
> dependency to provide backward compatibility could end up being a lot of
> work in the long term.
>
> Do you think we need to push this to 3.1 to allow more time to think about
> it and discuss it further?
>
> Those are my thoughts at this time
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:04 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm personally not sure about this. We have not maintained the existing
> > log4j-appender very actively, so are we sure that we can do a better job
> > than the log4j community?
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:46 AM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kafka dev,
> > >
> > > I'd like to kick-off the voting for KIP-719: Add Log4J2 Appender.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Dongjin
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Dongjin Lee*
> > >
> > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr
> > > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase:
> > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr
> > > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin:
> > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr
> > > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck:
> > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin
> > > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
> > >
> >
>
--
*Dongjin Lee*
*A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.*
*github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr
<https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr
<https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr
<https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: speakerdeck.com/dongjin
<https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
