Can't we work with the log4j community to support the alternative format?
Ismael
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:54 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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>*
>
