[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-36?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13144028#comment-13144028
]
Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-36:
-----------------------------------
Rather that attempt to describe how XYZ should be done, I think it's better to
focus on the contract and leave how to achieve that contract up to that area of
code / the implementer.
The contract for tests is a clean test run and no unnecessary output to clutter
up the output, Then, if an unwanted change appears, it's easier to see for
someone who isn't an expert in every area of the code. A zero output policy is
much easier for the release manager as well who is working "at scale".
> 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
