HBASE-26841 Replace log4j with reload4j for hbase-connector

[taklwu]

although we could also wait hbase, kafka and spark to upgrade without the log4j v1, we just exclude them here and rely on our own tests.

We can discuss here if we should not do this approach.

[Apache-HBase]

🎊 +1 overall

Vote	Subsystem	Runtime	Comment
+0 🆗	reexec	1m 14s	Docker mode activated.
		_ Prechecks _
+1 💚	dupname	0m 0s	No case conflicting files found.
+1 💚	@author	0m 0s	The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-0 ⚠️	test4tests	0m 0s	The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
		_ master Compile Tests _
+0 🆗	mvndep	0m 25s	Maven dependency ordering for branch
+1 💚	mvninstall	1m 29s	master passed
+1 💚	compile	1m 0s	master passed
+1 💚	javadoc	0m 58s	master passed
		_ Patch Compile Tests _
+0 🆗	mvndep	0m 7s	Maven dependency ordering for patch
+1 💚	mvninstall	0m 54s	the patch passed
+1 💚	compile	0m 59s	the patch passed
+1 💚	javac	0m 59s	the patch passed
+1 💚	whitespace	0m 0s	The patch has no whitespace issues.
+1 💚	xml	0m 4s	The patch has no ill-formed XML file.
+1 💚	javadoc	0m 58s	the patch passed
		_ Other Tests _
+1 💚	unit	8m 3s	root in the patch passed.
		17m 11s

Subsystem	Report/Notes
Docker	ClientAPI=1.41 ServerAPI=1.41 base: https://ci-hbase.apache.org/job/HBase-Connectors-PreCommit/job/PR-94/1/artifact/yetus-precommit-check/output/Dockerfile
GITHUB PR	#94
Optional Tests	dupname javac javadoc unit xml compile
uname	Linux 3f414b160309 5.4.0-1043-aws #45~18.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Fri Apr 9 23:32:25 UTC 2021 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Build tool	hb_maven
Personality	dev-support/jenkins/hbase-personality.sh
git revision	master / 036729d
Default Java	Oracle Corporation-1.8.0_282-b08
Test Results	https://ci-hbase.apache.org/job/HBase-Connectors-PreCommit/job/PR-94/1/testReport/
Max. process+thread count	917 (vs. ulimit of 12500)
modules	C: kafka/hbase-kafka-proxy spark/hbase-spark spark/hbase-spark-it hbase-connectors-assembly . U: .
Console output	https://ci-hbase.apache.org/job/HBase-Connectors-PreCommit/job/PR-94/1/console
versions	git=2.20.1
Powered by	Apache Yetus 0.12.0 https://yetus.apache.org

This message was automatically generated.

[busbey]

the expectation is this would work with the upcoming hbase 2.4.11 release with reload4j right?

we'll need to revisit what to do once we get a hbase 2.y with log4j 2 instead of reload4j, but I think that can wait until the time comes.

[taklwu]

yeah, other than the hbase-connector itself, as you figured out that it could be version upgrade in hbase , hadoop , and spark-core.

then my concern is, if we should postpone the hbase-connector 1.1.0 release till then ? or should we have a release without fixing log4j issue?

[busbey]

I wonder if we should be more aggressive here in the connectors repo. For the spark connector we don't need to include any specific logging backend, because we should get that from spark. For the kafka proxy by default we get a classpath from hbase that probably includes a logging backend.

[taklwu]

if we don't have banned-log4j to check the dependency of each upstream component (spark-core and hbase), we don't need to be add those exclude lines and try to remove the slf4j and log4j JARs in the classpath...

but again, you're right, if each upstream fixes it and we upgrade to that version with the fixes, then banned-log4j should be working and you won't see those excludes (my plan was to upgrade spark and hbase later, and unblock the hbase-connector release).

[NihalJain]

Hello guys, I do not see any movement here. Now, do we want to replace log4j with log4j2 here? I could take that task up if others are interested.

[Reidddddd]

Hello guys, I do not see any movement here. Now, do we want to replace log4j with log4j2 here? I could take that task up if others are interested.

please go ahead..

[petersomogyi]

@subrat-mishra is also working on log4j migration in #117.

[stoty]

Closing as this is no longer relevant.
Please reopen if you disagree @taklwu .