On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 00:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: mmarinschek
> Date: Sat Feb 18 16:46:18 2006
> New Revision: 378805
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=378805&view=rev
> Log:
> minor changes in application-factory, fixed "readOnly" referral in
> HtmlRendererUtils
>
>
ok - so that means we'll need to drop static?
won't that cause performance problems?
regards,
Martin
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 00:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Author: mmarinschek
> > Date: Sat Feb 18 16:46:18 2006
> > New Revision: 3
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 00:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Author: mmarinschek
> > Date: Sat Feb 18 16:46:18 2006
> > New Revision: 378805
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=378805&view=rev
> > Log:
> > minor changes in applic
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 11:36 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> ok - so that means we'll need to drop static?
Yes. In fact, because MyFaces libs are often placed in a "shared"
classpath, static should be avoided in almost all cases I expect.
>
> won't that cause performance problems?
Calling LogF
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 20:27 +0100, Manfred Geiler wrote:
> On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just a warning to all developers: when using commons-logging in a
> > library, STATIC fields must **NOT** be used to store Log objects.
> >
> > The problem is that the class may be c
wo-ow.
it's great to learn a new thing every day ;)
regards,
Martin
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 20:27 +0100, Manfred Geiler wrote:
> > On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Just a warning to all developers: when using commo
x27;, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: svn commit: r378805 -
>/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/application/ApplicationFactoryImpl.java
>
>wo-ow.
>
>it's great to learn a new thing every day ;)
>
>regards,
>
>Martin
>
>On 2/19/06, Sim
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 20:27 +0100, Manfred Geiler wrote:> On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Just a warning to all developers: when using commons-logging in a
> > library, STATIC fields must **NOT** be used to store Log obj
Hi Craig,
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:56 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> There *is* a JSF-specific consideration to think about, if you have
> classes that implement StateHolder (like a UIComponent
> implementation). Log instances will generally *not* be serializable,
> so you will need to deal spe
On 2/20/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Craig,On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:56 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:> There *is* a JSF-specific consideration to think about, if you have> classes that implement StateHolder (like a UIComponent> implementation). Log instances will generally *not
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 21:47 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> No, I was not aware of that change ... but does it actually work?
> Declaring something Serializable is not by itself sufficient if there
> are transient variables inside the implementation. (On a separate
> thread on commons-dev, I reco
+1 for dependency on commons-logging 1.0.4
BTW, Stan (Silvert), how do you solve these logging issues in JBoss?
AFAIK, JBoss has only one central log4j configuration. However, is
there a way to config logging per eapp or webapp? If yes, how does
JBoss address those issues with shared classes?
Tha
Yes +1 for 1.0.4. Thanks for explaining all of this.
On 2/21/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for dependency on commons-logging 1.0.4
>
> BTW, Stan (Silvert), how do you solve these logging issues in JBoss?
> AFAIK, JBoss has only one central log4j configuration. However, is
> t
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:56 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Could you do me a favor and publicize this in the Struts community as
> well? The framework code there is littered with static log instances
> to.
Will do.
> You might also want to add some notes related to using Log ins
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:56 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:> Simon,>> Could you do me a favor and publicize this in the Struts community as> well? The framework code there is littered with static log instances
> to.Will do.> You might also want
Weee if you implement StateHolder, this isn't an issue.
The public no-arg constructor will be used, variable initializer
expressions will run, etc.
If you implement Serializable instead, then Craig's totally right -
transient variables will not be re-initialized. You can deal with
this
Indeed.
this really means I'd be willing to switch to JDK logging. What was
the reason again we couldn't do that?
regards,
Martin
On 2/20/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Weee if you implement StateHolder, this isn't an issue.
> The public no-arg constructor will be used, va
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 22:33 -0800, Adam Winer wrote:
> Weee if you implement StateHolder, this isn't an issue.
> The public no-arg constructor will be used, variable initializer
> expressions will run, etc.
>
> If you implement Serializable instead, then Craig's totally right -
> transien
On 2/19/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed.this really means I'd be willing to switch to JDK logging. What wasthe reason again we couldn't do that?If we are willing to live with a "JDK 1.4 or later" restriction, no reason at all. That, however, would seem to be an issue for so
Hmm... didn't we settle on JDK 1.4 a while ago?
Simon has some other arguments on not using JDK logging, see above.
regards,
Martin
On 2/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed.
> >
> > this really means I'd be
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 07:59 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> this really means I'd be willing to switch to JDK logging. What was
> the reason again we couldn't do that?
The JSF 1.1 spec requires java 1.3 compatibility. At least that's what
this email stated:
http://marc.theaimsgroup
On 2/19/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 22:33 -0800, Adam Winer wrote:
> > Weee if you implement StateHolder, this isn't an issue.
> > The public no-arg constructor will be used, variable initializer
> > expressions will run, etc.
> >
> > If you implem
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:51 -0800, Adam Winer wrote:
> IIRC, you have a personal stake in this issue, but the
> plain truth is that there is no war anymore - java.util.logging
> won by Sun's fiat. Technical superiority is not the ultimate
> arbiter.
>
Yes, I am a commons-logging committer. That
On 2/20/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:51 -0800, Adam Winer wrote:
> > IIRC, you have a personal stake in this issue, but the
> > plain truth is that there is no war anymore - java.util.logging
> > won by Sun's fiat. Technical superiority is not the ultima
24 matches
Mail list logo
