First of all, thanks for RepositorySelector clue. Just to clarify the sense of my message: it was not a critic, just a help request! :-) You know, I met log4j so long ago, and I found it very very useful for a large range of problems. So I think I'm not a 'casual developer' and I'm sure that releases are carefully planned! And it's true that upgrading to 1.2 consist in changing only one class name. I'm writing a multi-purpose server that use log4j for auditing finality (hence I found useful to create my own Category and Priority), so, considering I'm in a early phase of develop, I choose to switch to the newest version of log4j and embrace it in all its improvements. That's all.
However I wonder, to avoid Logger subclassing, why not make it final? But it was just a thought... Kind regards, Giuseppe. P.S. Sorry for my poor English! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Differences in XMLConfiguration beetween ver. 1.1 and 1.2 > > Sub-classing of the Logger class is discouraged because it is a very > problematic feature. Consequently, XML config scripts do not support > the class attribute in <logger> element. However, your old > configuration scripts will continue to work since the <category> > element still has the "class" attribute. Large code bases can > continue to use sub-classes of Category by changing a class name > (CategoryFactory -> LoggerFactory). If you have any problem with this > just shout. > > A not so casual developer can still instruct log4j to use a custom > sub-class of Logger by programming the RepositorySelector > interface. This new interface is much more robust and problem > free. > > Log4j 1.2 is backward compatible with log4j 1.1 except for the > CategoryFactory -> LoggerFactory change. It also warns about features > that will be dropped in future releases. It prepares the terrain for > log4j 1.3 where Logger sub-classing will be generalized through the > RepositorySelector interface. > > It might look like random changes to the user but it's all carefully > planned and in a way that is as backward compatible as possible. > > At 09:28 30.05.2002 +0200, you wrote: > >New logger and level elements are not fully 'compatible' with old category > >and priority (some attribute like class are now not supported), the order > >of elements is changhed, there is no loggerFactory elements, etc. etc. > > > >Anyone knows where can I find some documentation about differences in > >log4j.dtd beetween version 1.2 and version 1.1? > > > > > >Thanks in advance. > > -- > Ceki > > SUICIDE BOMBING - A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY > Sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/1234567b > I am signatory number 22106. What is your number? > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
