> > The quirky thing about this is that because log4cxx doesn't actually > > care about the Java class name, the following lines in the config file > > are all equivalent: > > <appender name="ROLL" > > class="org.apache.log4j.rolling.RollingFileAppender"> > > <appender name="ROLL" class="RollingFileAppender"> > > <appender name="ROLL" class="log4cxx.RollingFileAppender"> > > I don't get your point: The second and third line could be used to > address the wrong RollingFileAppender currently, the obsolete one? > Looking at the class loader, the absolute name is preferred, so NOT > using those names for appenders could easily be considered a user > error or docs would need to be made more clear. >
All of those configuration lines load the correct version of RollingFileAppender. The meta-data about the class(in the DECLARE_LOG4CXX_OBJECT macro) contains the class name. For the non-obsolete version, the class name is simply "RollingFileAppender". The obsolete version is defined here: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/blob/79352bd0160866d06b61414f2dc83d1f71b44335/src/main/cpp/obsoleterollingfileappender.cpp#L40 If the exact class name isn't found, then the code simply looks at everything beyond the last '.' to load the class: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/blob/79352bd0160866d06b61414f2dc83d1f71b44335/src/main/cpp/class.cpp#L123 Since all of the examples that I gave end in 'RollingFileAppender' and they don't equal "org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender", the correct RollingFileAppender is used. -Robert Middleton
