DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44109>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44109 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-18 07:25 ------- I can certainly see your point - I was surprised when I had the null pointer exception bubble out - all the time I have been using log4j, I've never had it happen before - so its probably a good performance tradeoff. But at the same time, it nags me as wrong that any poorly written logger could inject runtime exceptions into the code simply calling a log method. Certainly no issue with making it a 2.0 issue, given the potential issues with the change. In my case, I have to have programmatic feedback if the telnet appender can't be started due to port issues, so I'll just stick with my modified constructor solution for now. It seems to me that a correct fix for a 2.0 release would be to make the activateOptions method throw a checked exception. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
