-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 11:24 AM
To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: commons-logging auto-detection WAS: [logging]
Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
Simon et al.
Log4j is slowly
I agree as well. Manually writing enter/exit log tracing calls would be
far too tedious as well as error prone.
-Original Message-
From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:04 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [logging]
-Original Message-
From: simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:19 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 11:52, Martin Cooper wrote:
This sure doesn't sound
hide in the corner and pretend that I
didn't write
that section of the user's guide?
Charles Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/09/2004 05:20:24 PM:
snip
Further, the JCL User Guide has a section labeled National Language
Support And Internationalization, in which the following
-Original Message-
From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:54 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
I'm not a logging expert, but couldn't the internationalized
8
Since all of the logging methods (fatal, error, etc.)
accept a message
of type Object, you could support i18n/l10n by doing
something like the
following:
log.warn(new Message(key, params));
where params is an Object[]. Of course, Message could have
additional
-Original Message-
From: Simon Kitching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:39 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 14:23, Simon Kitching wrote:
Alas, I
