gmane.comp.apache.logging.log4cxx.devel

AS/400, iSeries, Systemi, etc

Kelly Beard — 2012-05-09T20:30:23

Has anyone attempted a port to the OS/400 operating system?  I'd kill
for this for my C++ code.

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Nathaniel W. Turner — 2012-04-06T18:23:23

Folks who are maintaining log4cxx branches at github.com, don't forget to look 
at the network graph for the project --- you may find that the fix you need has 
already been implemented on another branch.

On 03/09/2012 07:24 AM, Roland wrote:

RE: Does log4cxx is thread safe

Roger Orr — 2012-03-26T21:28:19

The original work around (calling the method early) works.
Failing that one could add a mutex of some kind around the call, for VC on
Windows.
 
Roger.

-----Original Message-----
From: chandpriyankara< at >gmail.com [mailto:chandpriyankara< at >gmail.com] On Behalf
Of chand priyankara
Sent: 24 March 2012 17:14
To: Log4CXX Dev
Subject: Re: Does log4cxx is thread safe


Shall we continue with double locking?


On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Roger Orr <rogero< at >howzatt.demon.co.uk>
wrote:


Rob Riggs wrote:



Sadly it seems even VC 11 beta doesn't implement the new standard in this
area.
I am a little disappointed :-(

Regards,
Roger.

Re: Does log4cxx is thread safe

chand priyankara — 2012-03-24T17:13:53

Shall we continue with double locking?

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Roger Orr <rogero< at >howzatt.demon.co.uk>wrote:

RE: Does log4cxx is thread safe

Roger Orr — 2012-03-24T15:33:59


Sadly it seems even VC 11 beta doesn't implement the new standard in this
area.
I am a little disappointed :-(

Regards,
Roger.

Re: Does log4cxx is thread safe

Rob Riggs — 2012-03-24T14:33:56

What version of the compiler are you using? The new C++11 standard 
requires that scoped static variables are initialized in a thread-safe 
manner.  I would expect that VC10/VC11 works correctly.  That said, the 
function as it stands is not thread-safe on older MS compilers.  Your 
workaround sounds reasonable.

Rob

Does log4cxx is thread safe

Tomer Guri — 2012-03-21T10:34:41

Hi all,

 

Though this sounds like silly question, we found production issue which
may expose a small problem with log4cxx thread safety.

We got application crash when trying to write a log line due to level
object being null and accessed.

When deeping our research we found that the way "get levels" functions
are implemented looks to us as not fully thread safety.

The way the function implemented for all log level is:

LevelPtr Level::getError() {

   static LevelPtr level(new Level(Level::ERROR_INT,
LOG4CXX_STR("ERROR"), 3));

   return level;

}

 

Now in case two threads are accessing the same time (and at the first
time) to this function the level may return null as static member is not
thread safe on windows by design.

You can see it in the below article:

C++ scoped static initialization is not thread-safe, on purpose!

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/08/85901.aspx

 

This can be easily worked around by write dummy log line for each level
when application starts - making s

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Roland — 2012-03-09T12:24:57

Hi.

Since I'm unable to commit to the original project, I forked it, and 
committed the LOGCXX-385 patch.

You can pull the fix, if you ever have time.

PS. Palic, Darko if we all fork the original project ( 
https://github.com/apache/log4cxx ), then github will remember the 
forking, and it will be really easy to pull changes from each others 
public repositories.

And the original ASF people can pull the changes they feel are good 
enough for them.

Regards,
Roland

On 03/09/2012 01:31 PM, chand priyankara wrote:

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Thorsten Schöning — 2012-03-09T11:58:31

Guten Tag chand priyankara,
am Freitag, 9. März 2012 um 12:31 schrieben Sie:


But currently nobody is (able to) commiting, that's the problem. ;-)

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

chand priyankara — 2012-03-09T11:31:27

hi all,

i think its better to continue with  https://github.com/apache/log4cxx
repo. Since it has change log, we can go ahead with committing bug fixes.

But i wonder which has the latest code.



On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Roland <rolandu< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Roland — 2012-03-09T09:29:21

Hi.

I appreciate your try to make a fork but there are a few things on my 
mind before I'd commit there.

1. There already exists  a project named log4cpp 
http://log4cpp.sourceforge.net/
so the name is a bit misleading

2. You did not include old changelog, which is available at 
https://github.com/apache/log4cxx


A thing about log4net

It seems less cross-plaform than log4cxx, and seems to be harder to use 
on an embedded device.


Since ASF members do not want to maintain this software, like is visible 
from here.. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-385 (a patch to 
fix a issue)

I think the best idea would be to create a fork of that 
https://github.com/apache/log4cxx GIT repository.

I think old commit history with the bugs that were fixed is necessary 
for a forked project.

Thanks,
Roland

Re: Commit access to log4cxx

Thorsten Schöning — 2012-03-09T08:03:45

Guten Tag Roland,
am Freitag, 9. März 2012 um 08:44 schrieben Sie:


There was a discussion about if the project is still alive and a fork
was initiated. Maybe you want to publish your patch there:

https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

Re: Commit access to log4cxx

Roland — 2012-03-09T07:44:24

The patch named log4cxx-385 has waited in bug-repository for a long time (more than a year), no-one has committed it.

Thanks

chand priyankara <chandpriyankara< at >engineering.com> wrote:

hi roland,

you can publish patch in the dev mailing list. so a commiter can review it and commit to repo.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Roland <rolandu< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Hi..

How to get commit access to log4cxx project?

There is a really annoying Makefile problem.

There is a patch but no-one has pushed it to SVN/git.

If no one else will, I'd like to do it.

Thank you,
Roland Uuesoo

Re: Commit access to log4cxx

chand priyankara — 2012-03-09T07:30:43

hi roland,
you can publish patch in the dev mailing list. so a commiter can review it
and commit to repo.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Roland <rolandu< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Commit access to log4cxx

Roland — 2012-03-08T18:31:10

Hi..

How to get commit access to log4cxx project?

There is a really annoying Makefile problem.

There is a patch but no-one has pushed it to SVN/git.

If no one else will, I'd like to do it.

Thank you,
Roland Uuesoo

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Curt Arnold — 2012-02-03T06:46:21

Sorry about not responding sooner. I'm going to pull the old newborn excuse. everybody is doing well, but no one is getting much sleep or keeping up with mailing lists.

log4net had a reasonably successful reboot a few months ago. There is a bit of a chicken and egg issue with ASF development is that granting commit rights requires a history of contributions to the project, but it is hard to establish that history on a project that not in an active development phase. In the log4net reboot, an established ASF member and motivated user of log4net (but not an previously active log4net committer) acted as a SVN clerk and mentor to motivated users without an established history to pushed through the first official non-incubating release of log4net.

The problematic issue with forking to GitHub is that it can become extraordinarily difficult to migrate that code back to the ASF since the ASF has very high standards to make sure that all code can be traced back to the original author and that there is a clear recor

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Thorsten Schöning — 2012-02-02T08:06:15

Guten Tag Palic, Darko,
am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 um 08:54 schrieben Sie:


There already is a log4cpp out there, maybe choose another name?
log4cx, log4cxxx, log4cx2...

http://log4cpp.sourceforge.net/

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Palic, Darko — 2012-02-02T07:54:30

Hello all,

I think there is no more interest from the core development team to 
response to the community. So from my point of view, I am personally 
declaring the project log4cxx as dead - sigh and sigh even more...

I've created a new repo on github, which contains the important svn-repo 
sources.
The fork is available under https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp
I've added the trunk and the current tag to git.
- svn-tag v0_10_0 is https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp/tree/log4cxx_v0_10_0
- svn-trunk is https://github.com/dpalic/log4cpp

If someone is willing to join me, I've created a fork. I will add some 
of the patches from the mailinglist what I am already using. Maybe there 
are other patches what would be fine to add to a source distribution.

For the communication I hope we can stay on this mailinglist.

bye

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Palic, Darko — 2012-01-27T14:55:13

Hi developers,

it is really necessary to define the project lead standpoint to the 
community.
Are there plans to integrate the open patches into the main stream? If 
so, what will be the schedule?
Are there plans to open the repository for more contributors? If so, 
what are the requirements for the possible contributors?

The recommendation of Pau Garcia is IMHO one way, which could happen 
right now. But I think it would be the baddest what could happen, if a 
fork will be made.

< at >project lead: please come to clean. Nothing is more annoying if there 
are problems, but no responses from the lead.

Darko

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Pau Garcia i Quiles — 2012-01-26T17:24:42


Your proposal would work if new committers are accepted.

I don't know the ASF, but I wouldn't accept a new committer unless I'm sure
the guy deserves it. That's why I proposed the fork: it's immediate (you
can release the first version tomorrow) and it's useful as a playground for
potential new committers.

Re: Is log4cxx still alive?

Rhys Ulerich — 2012-01-26T17:09:06

The Apache infrastructure already in place for log4cxx is excellent
Forking it would be a damned shame as we'd lose that.
Plus forking is appropriate when there's a difference of vision,
design, or licensing.  None apply here.  Increasing the number of
committers/maintainers is a much better option, IMHO.

On possible way forward (with the hopes that the developers are
lurking and might bless the idea)...

How about the community plans two minor dot releases?  For 0.11.0
maybe two or three new committers comb the issue tracker for bugfix
patches, apply them, and release.  The current maintainers oversee the
0.11.0 release.  For 0.12.0 maybe those new committers solicit and
review patches from folks like Darko who hasn't prepared them because
he was dissuaded by log4xx's inactivity.  Get one of the new
committers to run the 0.12.0 release process with the current
maintainer's oversight.  After 0.12.0 the maintainers decide if they
want to transfer over to new folks or if they want to stay involved.

- Rhys