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 of the

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
-1 as long as LogSource uses catch(Throwable){} It is far too risky in server side code to catch all thrown exceptions and errors. SWALLOWING them to boot is unforgivable. -Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:56

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