that
avoided commons-logging?
3) Anyone know any commons-logging folks I can email/talk to?
FWIW, I'm not a class-loader expert. I've tried to explain the problems
to commons-logging folks in a bug I filed (and in other bugs I've read),
but I don't see this getting resolved in a timely fashion
to).
2) Anyone have any advice on how to maintain a copy of httpclient that
avoided commons-logging?
3) Anyone know any commons-logging folks I can email/talk to?
FWIW, I'm not a class-loader expert. I've tried to explain the
problems
to commons-logging folks in a bug I filed (and in other bugs
can email/talk to?
FWIW, I'm not a class-loader expert. I've tried to explain the problems
to commons-logging folks in a bug I filed (and in other bugs I've read),
but I don't see this getting resolved in a timely fashion.
-Eric
A few details btw:
To get things working
have any advice on how to maintain a copy of httpclient that
avoided commons-logging?
3) Anyone know any commons-logging folks I can email/talk to?
FWIW, I'm not a class-loader expert. I've tried to explain the problems
to commons-logging folks in a bug I filed (and in other bugs I've read
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Tim Vernum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:38 AM
From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Configuration is not done by a components, therefore it is
outside the scope of the common-logging package.
use it to
understand to debug their templates.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:21 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Problems with commons-logging
I agree
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
Hey, I am talking about the really minimal log to a file
configuration that any logger supports and drawing the line
after that.
The any logger supports statement is why this proposal is on the
slippery slope. IMHO, the commons-logging API itself
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Configuration is a feature of a particular *implementation* of logging.
The implementations we wrap all have their own configuration mechanism.
So does the simple logger implementation that writes to System.out (which
uses system properties).
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
1) The more you add the more you have to support.
If someone adds code to commons-logging to do basic
configuration, then commons has to support it.
You have to make sure it's not creating security problems.
You have to support it for any future
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
1) The more you add the more you have to support.
If someone adds code to commons-logging to do basic
configuration, then commons has to support it.
You have to make sure it's not creating security problems.
You have to
- Original Message -
From: Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Morgan Delagrange [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: Problems with commons-logging
Morgan,
It looks like your reading of my posts
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:36 PM
- Original Message -
From: Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:16 AM
Morgan,
It looks like your reading of
Hi Berin, answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:11 PM
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
In Avalon, we provide the following interface for the LoggerConfiguration:
Hi Craig,
Although Costin defended all the reasons to add a bit of configuration
much better than I would be able to do, there are a couple of options
to consider.
The rest goes inline:
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday,
necessary however, since it does not change the way
components are developed at all.
- Morgan
- Original Message -
From: Tim Vernum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: Problems with commons-logging
: RE: Problems with commons-logging
Paulo,
I've seen you mention a couple of times that you consider singletons
dangerous. Would you care to elaborate? Is it because you're
concerned that
people can't write thread-safe code correctly? Or because correct
thread-safe code affects concurrency
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Tim Vernum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:51 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: Problems with commons-logging
...
Otherwise we'll still have to code against Log4j APIs ( to set
Donnie Hale wrote:
Paulo,
I've seen you mention a couple of times that you consider singletons
dangerous. Would you care to elaborate? Is it because you're concerned that
people can't write thread-safe code correctly? Or because correct
thread-safe code affects concurrency? Or something
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:50 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Problems with commons-logging
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Scott Sanders wrote:
Are you saying that with getInstance(), we should remove it and just
use newLogInstance()? I
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:05 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Problems with commons-logging
From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The configuration should be done with the logging package
API. A component
is not going to do configuration
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
The case: you have 2 apps you want to keep isolated. Allowing one to
log into the other's log is unacceptable. Classloader tricks are not
allways possible and are extremely error prone ( and I would say -
ineffective, can be tricked ). And the
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: Problems with commons-logging
BTW, another issue I just saw:
catch(Throwable) {}
Is it really the intent to catch OutOfMemoryError, and do nothing?
Or, you really want to keep the thread from cleaning up when
thread.stop()
is called
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
- security: getLogNames() and getInstance() are evil and unacceptable.
Both log4j and logkit have solutions that allow safe use in a
Could you elaborate on getInstance()? If the underlying logging packages
First, is the combination of getLogNames()
From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The configuration should be done with the logging package API. A component
is not going to do configuration, the application, or the administrator,
is
going to. The components need a uniform way of accessing the logging
system
that the application is
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:24 AM
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
...
I don't see a problem with getInstance, though. What's the problem ?
Using getInstance, or just
]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:05 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Problems with commons-logging
From: Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The configuration should be done with the logging package API.
A component
is not going to do configuration, the application
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 2:18 AM
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:33:46AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- security: getLogNames() and getInstance() are evil and unacceptable.
Both log4j and
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Scott Sanders wrote:
Are you saying that with getInstance(), we should remove it and just
use newLogInstance()? I am also fine with this, albeit a +0.
It's not a naming issue, but a behavior issue.
The case: you have 2 apps you want to keep isolated. Allowing one to
log
I am -1 on walking the config line. No config. None. This
API intends
to mask all of this and allow a component to just log. The
container
using the component will be required to configure logging.
We are not
trying to replace LogKit/Log4J, we are only trying to replace
]]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:58 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Problems with commons-logging
On 2/2/02 6:12 PM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of this issues are addressed in the code I have. Lets see if I
have time next week to take a look at both
30 matches
Mail list logo
