...and our learnings... 1) don't edit down the facts too far when asking for help. You may edit out essential information, or get potentially helpful people to concentrate on a different problem.
2) find a nice way to say RTFM. Calling a question "stupid" onlist and implying that posting a question is a waste of time is not a good way to come across as helpful. Douglas E Wegscheid Lead Technical Analyst, Whirlpool Corporation (269)-923-5278 "A wrong note played hesitatingly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with conviction is interpretation." John El <jo...@mailinator.com> wrote on 04/09/2009 11:32:36 PM: > > To: Edward > Perhaps I did get bent out of shape, but I do think my question had merit. > I suppose my mistake was in not explaining that there was no obvious place > for the fatal log to go, but it had to be going somewhere because another > system that I don't have access to was reporting on it. > RTFM? And non trivial? I had looked in a lot of places for some info on > this and found nothing, I posted here for some help and was told the > question was dumb. > > To: Douglas > I ran some similar tests, it's how I added the string that I grep'ed for. > "I would be inclined to think that a different configuration > was getting picked up" that's what I thought too, but it turned out to be a > little more complicated than that. I was finally able to track down the guy > that set it up in the first place and his explanation was convoluted. It's > a very clever set up, but, in a lot of ways it's too clever, and completely > un-documented. I'd like to tell you but then I'll just get more posts saying > 'oh, of course that's how it was done! I could have told you that'. I feel > bad for not telling you but it was hard work figuring it, if it comes up for > someone else, I'll leave it to be hard work for them. > > To: Daniel > "MAYBE the person should read up on the basics first?" > Like I said above I looked everywhere for an explanation of this, perhaps it > is basic, but I still haven't found any documentation on this kind of set > up. > "If you want to run without an appender fine. You could even try to run > log4j with no setup, or even no downloaded jars... don't expect it to work > well though." > Again, the system runs, the motorcycle has gas and an engine, it has a set > up, it has downloaded jars and it's not coasting down a hill. It works. > > To: Matt > This was just a snippet, I could have posted the whole file but I think I > would have got the same response. The rest of the file declares some > appenders, and categories but nothing that obviously directs to the fatal > log. Thanks for the link. It is actually one of my main resources. > > To: Bender Henri > I know you think my question was dumb, and a waste of your time because you > think I didn't research it enough. I think you're wrong. As far as I can > tell my situation is not in the documentation. If I ever find it in the docs > I'll post it and eat crow. > > To: All > I'm very sorry to have wasted your time. > I just didn't understand how it could possibly work without all the obvious > things that the documentation says is required. > Now I do. > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie- > questions-tp22938434p22982589.html > Sent from the Log4j - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >
