> Why??? This is not good. I am not happy that we expose the Log4j
> configuration format in the Configuration for Pax Logging, but that
> was finally a compromise that I decided to live with. To have Log4j
> exported as a package out of Pax Logging seems like an even poorer
> idea. Why is this necessary?
I guess it's not. I missed all those discussions about pax-logging, and
now by looking at the source, I can see that none of the log4j code is
being exported at all.
So, to correct what I want to do: I want to _import_ that package. ;-)
My goal is to get access to the org.apache.logj4.net package, which is
not available at runtime because that package is not embedded into the
pax-logging-service bundle.
The current config says:
Private-Package: org.apache.log4j, \
org.apache.log4j.config, \
org.apache.log4j.helpers, \
org.apache.log4j.or, \
org.apache.log4j.spi, \
org.apache.log4j.xml, \
org.ops4j.pax.logging.internal
You'll notice that it doesn't include the "net" package, which is the
one I want.
If I include that in the private packages, then:
[ERROR] Error building bundle
org.ops4j.pax.logging:pax-logging-service:bundle:1.2-SNAPSHOT :
Unresolved references to [javax.jms, javax.mail, javax.mail.internet,
javax.naming] by class(es) on the Bundle-Classpath[Jar:dot]:
[org/apache/log4j/net/JMSSink.class,
org/apache/log4j/net/JMSAppender.class,
org/apache/log4j/net/SMTPAppender$1.class,
org/apache/log4j/net/SMTPAppender.class]
So, if I add { javax.jms, javax.mail, javax.mail.internet,
javax.naming } to the Import-Package declaration, I can compile.
Does that make more sense?
Cheers,
=David.Leangen
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.ops4j.org
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
