It seems like v2 of Log4j has been in development for literally years. The Apache Log4J site no longer lists a roadmap, the dev mailing list seems almost entirely about 1.2 (which is appreciated!), use of v1.3 is discouraged, and the 2.0 branch is listed as "experimental". What's a believer to believe?
+1
A:
Well then I guess you already answered your own question, the devs have obviously stopped focusing on 2.0 builds a long time ago and have instead decided to continue the 1.x codebase.
And if you are on their mailing list, then ask them, the source of the issue.
TravisO
2008-11-14 17:10:24
They're continuing 1.2 maintainence/bugfixes. 1.3 was started, but it was decided that many of the changes in 1.3 were too drastic to be considered for a 1.x release, and would instead be put in 2.0 or backported to 1.2 and offered as extensions. I haven't really heard anything about 2.0 in a while.
Adam Jaskiewicz
2008-11-14 17:25:19
logback is a fork of log4j 1.3. The log4j folks talk about a version 2.0 with a lot of new ideas - it seems that new development primarily happen in logback
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
2009-01-20 12:48:54
From logback's home page: "Logback is intended as a successor to the popular log4j project. It was designed by Ceki Gülcü, the founder of log4j."
Olivier
2009-01-20 13:27:56
@Olivier, I do not believe the log4j development team have expressed this explicitly.
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
2010-01-03 16:11:11
+1
A:
I was on the log4j lists earlier this year. Last I knew they were busy back-porting features in 1.3 to the 1.2.15 branch. During couple months I was on there I never heard anything about log4j v 2 so I assume that it's pretty much abandoned.
Jason Tholstrup
2008-12-04 02:22:01
+3
A:
Log4j development has for all practical purposed stalled. Consider switching to logback, log4j's successor. Logback is conceptually similar to log4j and if you like log4j, you should like logback even better. It has many nice features and is well-documented.
Disclosure: I am the founder of both log4j and logback projects.
Ceki
2009-05-29 14:53:04
Ceki, you should really declare your interest before making such recommendations.
skaffman
2009-08-10 22:01:06
skaffman, I added a disclosure taking your comment into consideration. I believe that my statement about log4j development being stalled is factual and a mere observation of reality. Wouldn't you concur?
Ceki
2009-08-11 09:57:07
As founder, I'd be really curious to hear your opinion/explanation as why it failed...
matt b
2009-10-02 13:13:28
Ceki, perhaps you should add a line or two about why you forked log4j?
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
2009-11-19 18:19:55