Martin Ritchie wrote:
2009/9/22 Rajith Attapattu :
Martin/Marnie,
As I mentioned in one of my previous emails, I recognized the issue
with having a log4j.xml in the classpath.
Therefore I proposed to convert the log4j.xml to a log4j.properties.
The current behaviour is totally unacceptable a
2009/9/22 Rajith Attapattu :
> Martin/Marnie,
>
> As I mentioned in one of my previous emails, I recognized the issue
> with having a log4j.xml in the classpath.
> Therefore I proposed to convert the log4j.xml to a log4j.properties.
> The current behaviour is totally unacceptable and believe me the
Martin/Marnie,
As I mentioned in one of my previous emails, I recognized the issue
with having a log4j.xml in the classpath.
Therefore I proposed to convert the log4j.xml to a log4j.properties.
The current behaviour is totally unacceptable and believe me there is
a fair number of folks who have co
To give a little history, we had lots of users who complained about this -
they *really* don't want us to ship log4j config files with our release. It
caused them endless pain trying to sort out classpath order with a whole
bundle of 3rd party libaries.
Marnie
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Ra
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
> 2009/9/22 Rajith Attapattu :
>> Martin,
>>
>> IMO our releases should have a sensible default logging level and is
>> something that most users expect.
>> So I don't think we should be asking users to set
>> -Dlog4j.configuration=client.log4
2009/9/22 Rajith Attapattu :
> Martin,
>
> IMO our releases should have a sensible default logging level and is
> something that most users expect.
> So I don't think we should be asking users to set
> -Dlog4j.configuration=client.log4j
>
> However I agree we could use a log4j.properties in our cli
Martin,
IMO our releases should have a sensible default logging level and is
something that most users expect.
So I don't think we should be asking users to set
-Dlog4j.configuration=client.log4j
However I agree we could use a log4j.properties in our client instead
of a log4j.xml (all though this
... and we had *loads* of complaints about this previously ;-(
Marnie
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
> Rajith,
>
> One of the reasons we do not currently have a log4j.xml file in the
> client package is that all our users will pick this up.
> As you say on QPID-2113 Log4
Rajith,
One of the reasons we do not currently have a log4j.xml file in the
client package is that all our users will pick this up.
As you say on QPID-2113 Log4j will scan the classpath looking for
log4j.xml then log4j.properties. If it finds one then it will use it.
I'm also not convinced we shou
