On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 23:59 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote: > --- robert burrell donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > here are my results obtained by comparing the theory > > with the current > > behaviour. > > > > (1) JCL Behaves As Expected (50%) > > --------------------------------- > > 1,2,3,4,7,8,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,23,27,31 > > > > (2) JCL Throws Exception Rather Than Logging To > > Log4J (28%) > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 5,6,13,14,21,22,24,25,29 > > > > On 14, shouldn't JCL logging be via j.u.l? The > caller's classloader only has access to the api.jar, > so it shouldn't be possible to load Lo4jLogger. > > On 13 a similar situation applies, because with > parent-first loading the api.jar in the parent is > going to be the JCL that does discovery. It will see > its own Log4j but have no wrapper class.
good catch 8-) yes, that's right. the context classloader is set to the system so the wrapper cannot be loaded. therefore, in both cases, JCL should log to JUL. committed correction - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]