Hi, >I don't understand your comments. With the current defaults there are >no appenders, so *no* information is logged except a single console
I thought you meant the default configuration as in BasicConfigurator.configure being called? Maybe I misunderstood your original point. >least reasonable). What if you're using log4j in a library? It's not >up to you (the library writer) to decide what configuration the >calling application wants. You're in effect saying that every >component using log4j should go through the little "is it already >configured?" dance that was just discussed on this list, because you >can't know how your library will be combined with other components, >and you can't depend on somebody else checking the configuration. That would be a good safe practice, yeah: if you're writing a library, and are relying on someone else to provide the configuration for logging, you should check that the logging was indeed configuration and if not take action (raise exception, configure it for your needs, whatever). >What is the advantage of logging at DEBUG level if there are no >appenders? There's no advantage at all if there are no appenders. If BasicConfigurator.configure() is called there is one appender, attached to the root logger, at DEBUG level, so nothing is hidden. But if I now understand you correctly that you're talking about the case where not even BasicConfigurator.configure is called, then we have a different story and my -1 is misplaced perhaps. Yoav Shapira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
