Hi, >Instead, I have finally gotten around to writing a bug report about >the funky default behavior in log4j (which is my main reason for >wondering it log4j is already configured). > >http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28692
I've -1's this (message below), but stopped short of marking it as invalid/wontfix or something like that. "I'm -1 on changing this: in the absence of explicit configuration, it's better to have more information than less, so the current default is best. Obviously there'll be scenarios where it's expensive and/or ill-fitting, but those people should explicitly configure log4j. The default config of a logging system should never hide/reject logging statements." Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
