DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35131.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
--- Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:59 +1200, Simon Kitching
wrote:
The test doesn't set up its own clean classpath?!
I thought that was
what the AppClassLoader private class was all
about - though of course
it's hard to tell as there aren't any comments
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 16:42 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 21:22 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a flaw (maybe the child really
wanted jdk logging, and we're giving them log4j), but
basically we're discovering the log method made
available via
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 16:49 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
PS:
Robert, you didn't reply on whether you agree with removing the
isXXXAvailable methods or not. Please see second paragraph of comment
#12, and Brian's response in comment#13:
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:59 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
The test doesn't set up its own clean classpath?! I thought that was
what the AppClassLoader private class was all about - though of course
it's hard to tell as there aren't any comments on it.
If the unit test doesn't properly set up
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 21:17 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
I've been testing my new implementation of
LogFactoryImpl and it's looking good except it fails
the testInContainer test of o.a.c.l.LoadTest. This
test sets up a parent-last (aka child-first)
classloader hierarchy that has JCL and a
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 18:40 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 21:17 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
I've been testing my new implementation of
LogFactoryImpl and it's looking good except it fails
the testInContainer test of o.a.c.l.LoadTest. This
test sets up a
--- robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 18:40 +1200, Simon Kitching
wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 21:17 -0700, Brian
Stansberry wrote:
I've been testing my new implementation of
LogFactoryImpl and it's looking good except it
fails
the testInContainer
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 21:22 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a flaw (maybe the child really
wanted jdk logging, and we're giving them log4j), but
basically we're discovering the log method made
available via the TCCL.
I think that if log4j *can* be used, and we find it,
PS:
Robert, you didn't reply on whether you agree with removing the
isXXXAvailable methods or not. Please see second paragraph of comment
#12, and Brian's response in comment#13:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34661
Brian: my comment re copy/paste error in comments for
/show_bug.cgi?id=35131
Summary: [logging] LoadTest not included in ant based unit tests
Product: Commons
Version: Nightly Builds
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35131.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
--- Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 21:22 -0700, Brian Stansberry
wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a flaw (maybe the child
really
wanted jdk logging, and we're giving them log4j),
but
basically we're discovering the log method made
available via the TCCL.
snip
--- Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian: my comment re copy/paste error in comments
for Lumberjack test
refer to this line:
// Other throwables just mean couldn't load the
adapter or j.u.l
in method discoverLogImplementation. I think the or
j.u.l shouldn't be
there?
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 22:44 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
Sorry, wasn't clear about what I meant. The test
classpath used in the ant build includes Log4j, so it
will be discovered (unless we create a special
classpath for this one test). In any case, whether or
not a particular adapter is
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 22:48 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
snip
--- Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian: my comment re copy/paste error in comments
for Lumberjack test
refer to this line:
// Other throwables just mean couldn't load the
adapter or j.u.l
in method
I've been testing my new implementation of
LogFactoryImpl and it's looking good except it fails
the testInContainer test of o.a.c.l.LoadTest. This
test sets up a parent-last (aka child-first)
classloader hierarchy that has JCL and a class that
calls JCL in the child. JCL is also visible in the
17 matches
Mail list logo
