On Apr 21, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Yep and it can't be added to log4j 1.2 itself. Could add an
derived class (org.apache.log4j.plugins.PluginConfigurator ?) in
the components that supports it by overriding DOMConfigurator.
parse(Element). Could add a corresponding class in log4j 1.3
that is derived from its DOMConfigurator with no changed behavior
so you don't have to #ifdef your code (if you could do that). Do
you only need XML configuration or do you use a property file
configuration also?
It might be worth a try, but the _least_ amount of effort is to
tweak 1.3's LoggingEvent so that MDC values are deserialized
correctly. That gets Chainsaw the only real missing 1.2
compatibility.
I've committed a PluginConfigurator to both the component and log4j
1.3 and copied the LoggerRepositoryExImpl over to log4j 1.3.
I hope that we have established that Chainsaw on log4j 1.2.x is
achievable. If I drop in a LoggerRepositoryExImpl into log4j 1.3,
hopefully you have one code base that will build and run against
both SVN head and log4j 1.2.x+companions. I'd like to get to the
point where you can commit the Chainsaw modifications that allow
either build option so we can pick it up whenever something
motivates a release.
It is of course achievable; I'm just wondering what the cost in
time/effort it will be.
Been annoying trying to fix bugs in both branches and I have
effectively stopped fixing bugs on the log4j 1.3 branch. It is a
pretty substantial effort to work through the rest of Elias's changes
and fix things up for another release.
I'd expect that we'd have a release push for log4j 1.2.x. and the
companions when the PatternLayout backport looks reasonable. I
cut a log4j 1.2.15 release candidate at the end of February (died
for lack of quorum on the release vote) and people had been asking
about it since December.
We need to all talk together about the issue of quorum as a group.
We don't have a huge number of log4j PMC members as it is, and some
of them have been busy, or working on other things. At some point
we'll need to vote on something (a decision to discontinue 1.3 and
moving on to 2.0 designs for example), so we probably shouldn't
ignore it for too long. Perhaps we need a discussion about where
people are at?
I pushed as hard as I could to get responses on the log4j 1.2.15
release vote. If we could have a discussion on why we don't have
discussions, we'd not have a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
