Hi, Then again, I also thought XML configuration in the first place was overkill ;) So you can fairly safely ignore it when I say something is overkill. I've been in a very anti-bloat mood the past few months in all the projects I work on...
Enough for today. Have a good weekend everyone, Yoav --- Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote: > > > 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 > > > Most of the discussions arose from the work on the JoranConfigurator > which is a functional replacement for the DOMConfigurator. There is > some tension since the JoranConfigurator is in some ways a new start, > but needs to keep some degree of compatibility with the existing > configuration documents. > > Some of the issues have involved fairly established XML practice that > wasn't properly implemented in DOMConfigurator. The mess is trying to > work out how to do it right and maintain some backwards compatibility. > If not done right, then we end up some log4j-specific mutant of XML. > > The best example of this is the use of the log4j namespace prefix. Per > the namespaces spec, these two documents should have identical > interpretations: > > <log4j:configuration xmlns:log4j="http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/"/> > > <configuration xmlns="http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/"/> > > However, the current DOMConfigurator will only accept the first one. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
