Hi, This seems like such vast overkill. I'm not arguing the technical points here, I accept them all just fine. But it's configuration of a logging toolkit, that's all, and the current stuff has been working just fine for years now. How did we get into this level of in-depth discussion? ;)
Yoav --- Mark Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll buy that. > > Does this problem only happen with some xml config files, or ALL xml config > files? I don't use the xml include mechanism in my config files, so I guess > I never encountered this. But I have not been using the new > JoranConfigurator either. I need to get up to speed there. > > So, if xml configuration data were being pushed through a socket or a jms > message, it could not include any relative references, since there would be > no basis to resolve them. If they did, then there would be an error when > processing the data. I could live with that so long as I could resolve all > the references before pushing the data and send the fully resolved version > through the socket. > > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:11 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Configurator.doConfigure(InputStream) (was Re: Make Configurators > stateless again) > > > On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Mark Womack wrote: > > > The baseURI issue has nothing to do with URL vs InputStream. It is > > very XML > > protocol specific, and I don't think that any specific protocol issue > > should > > be propagated into a general interface like Configurator. Not unless > > you > > find a way to generally represent it and it makes sense to the general > > class/usage of Configurators. > > It isn't really XML specific, it just seems that way. It would effect > any configurator that supported an include mechanism. However the XML > configurators are the only ones at this time or in the foreseeable > future. > > If PropertyConfigurator had an include mechanism, it too would need > some way to resolve relative file references. With the extra baseURI > parameter, PropertyConfigurator or other non-XML configuration > mechanisms have some extra information they can just totally ignore > until the unlikely day that they add an include mechanism. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
