I just feared the overall reaction was to suggest the hierarchical logging configuration was a bad idea, when in fact I believe it is a valid concept to explore in discussion. I don't believe it to really be very complex a concept. My goal was to clarify my opinion and defend my position. I understand that it would not be something one would want to make the "default behavior" in Log4J. Yoav's opinion on that particular issue is quite valid and acceptable.
However, exploring the development of a Hierarchical Configurator would be of interest to some out there and could be done quite independent of the Log4J projects basecode itself, thanks to the well separated Configurator interface. Simply look at projects like Maven to see the benifit of Hierarchical Configuration Inheritance. This is really where my idea originated from. In Maven, the developer can designate build.properties files in several clearly defined locations (user.home, maven.home, ...) to isolate configuration information that is shared across many projects that the developer would not want to be seen in the cvs (like cvs usernames and site update configuration like ssh/scp executable locations). Things that are really custom and unique to a particular build enviroment and developer.
Cheers, Mark
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Hi Mark,
I understand your reaction. At the same time, please note that Yoav is a well-respected and persistent log4j contributor.
Let me take this opportunity to remind us of Apache's tradition for encouraging everyone to freely express their views, questions, ideas or criticisms and especially the latter. This is one reason why Apache is such a special place. Let us enjoy and cherish this privilege, because exceptional it truly is.
In light of the above, please consider a -1 (outside of a voting process) as just an opinion deserving the same consideration as any other opinion.
At 01:05 PM 3/29/2003 -0500, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
IMHO, You have completely misundertood the goals of this thread, review the rest of the thread for Ceki's simple and creative solution to my question. I never suggested that I was making a feature request for developers to implement greater functionality in log4j, certainly nothing people should feel they have to vote on. If I were, then I'd be making a feature request, not asking question on a users list.
What I was seeking, was interest and discussion on an alternate way to structure my logging configuration for my particular project. Something a *users* list should be trying to foster. This is just a *discussion* about hierarchical logging configuration ideas. Don't be so quick to snuff out discussing ideas on a user list by throwing *-1's* around.
IMHO, Log4J should be interested in promoting discussion about the configuration solutions that can be applied to the product, and expecially on the users list where others can search, reference and find them. I also think using voting on users questions like this is not very polite. Voting is really more appropriate for developers lists where the majority of the members actually have a stake (and probibly karma) in the direction the project goes in and are discussing making changes to the product.
Again, just my humble opinion. -Mark
Ingo Adler wrote:
Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Howdy,
IMHO that's too complicated to be worth it. There are too many
possibilities for confusion. The simpler we can make configuration, the
better. -1 on that.
--
Ceki
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
