RE: [LOGGING] Request for API change (was RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again))

2002-03-06 Thread Steve Downey
]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:13 PM To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' Subject: [LOGGING] Request for API change (was RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)) I want to revisit one of the issues noted below. A couple of weeks before the VOTE was posted I made a request for a couple

RE: [LOGGING] Request for API change (was RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again))

2002-03-06 Thread Steven Caswell
-Original Message- From: Steve Downey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:07 PM To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' Subject: RE: [LOGGING] Request for API change (was RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)) I'd argue that this is a misuse

Re: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Ted Husted
- Cut Here - I vote as follows on the proposed Commons Logging 1.0 Release: [x] +1 - I support this release and am willing to help [ ] +0 - I support this release, but cannot assist [ ] -0 - I don't support this release [ ] -1 - I vote against this release (requires valid

Re: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Morgan Delagrange
+1 - Original Message - From: Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:56 PM Subject: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again) OK, the round of discussion last time around has triggered some improvements in the pluggability

Re: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread costinm
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: * Adding mechanisms to configure loggers through the Log interface. No need for that - passing attributes to the factory should be enough for most common needs. In time we'll need to document whatever attribute names are used for different

RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Scott Sanders
- Cut Here - I vote as follows on the proposed Commons Logging 1.0 Release: [x] +1 - I support this release and am willing to help [ ] +0 - I support this release, but cannot assist [ ] -0 - I don't support this release [ ] -1 - I vote against this release (requires valid

RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Steve Downey
PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again) OK, the round of discussion last time around has triggered some improvements in the pluggability of the Logging API. In particular, it is now possible to plug your own factory class for Log instances, if you don't

RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Steve Downey wrote: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:07:35 -0500 From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again) -1

RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Glenn Kidd
-Original Message- From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:11 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again) - Cut Here - I vote as follows on the proposed Commons Logging 1.0 Release: [x] +1

Re: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread James Strachan
- Cut Here - I vote as follows on the proposed Commons Logging 1.0 Release: [X] +1 - I support this release and am willing to help [ ] +0 - I support this release, but cannot assist [ ] -0 - I don't support this release [ ] -1 - I vote against this release (requires valid

RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again)

2002-02-19 Thread Steve Downey
-Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:27 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [VOTE] Logging 1.0 Release (again) On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Steve Downey wrote: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:07:35