[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-36?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13133697#comment-13133697
]
Ian Dickinson commented on JENA-36:
-----------------------------------
> We should probably remove the build.xml file. Any reason not to do so?
Has there been a decision not to support builds other than using Maven? I use
Maven quite happily, but I realise that not all of the rest of the world does!
I would suggest that dropping non-Maven builds - a decision which may affect
some current Jena users - should be at least ratified by a vote (unless there
has already been one and I've forgotten it)
> log4j.properties can be a surprise
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-36
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-36
> Project: Jena
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Benson Margulies
> Assignee: Paolo Castagna
> Priority: Minor
>
> The jena jar, and perhaps others, has a log4j.properties on behalf of the
> commands. A little classpath confusion can end up with this at the head of
> the line of an app that is incorporating the jar.
> It would be more better, if you ask me, for the commands to use the -D for
> log4j to ask for a different file name, and leave *that* in the jar.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
