Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: ceki
Date: Sat Apr 21 22:35:18 2007
New Revision: 795
Modified:
slf4j/trunk/slf4j-api/src/main/java/org/slf4j/helpers/BasicMarker.java
Log:
better toString implementation
+ private static String OPEN = [ ;
+ private static String CLOSE =
Hi,
is it really Ceki using this eMail account? :-)
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello All,
Is there any opposition to adding the TRACE level in the next version of
SLF4J,
namely 1.4.0?
I am not using it (no usecase) but go ahead, many people demand it.
Regards
Boris
Hello,
this is a little bit offtopic, sorry, buth I think the right experts
will read this:
while running Maven for slf4j from the command line with no problems I
encounter problems
with the maven inside eclipse.
I have set both JAVA_HOME and M2_HOME correctly (this makes the command
line
Hi,
if an version changes one has to change at a lot of places. A
placeholder (like ${slf4j.ap.version} or @slf4j.ap.version@ has
advantages.
I am not aware of Unit-Testing of OSGi inside the IDE - maybe that will
not work and
you would have to run a (full) build.
Regards
Boris
[EMAIL
Hi,
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Any other issues that need to be dealt with?
I know this is the second time I post this:
I am still not happy with the underlying JCL Release. 1.0.4 is old and
1.1 is out since 10 May 2006.
SLF4J is in the excelent situation of active maintenance and
contributors. It
Hi Ceki,
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Hi Boris,
Thank your for the clarification. The 1.3 release fixes 2 relatively
critical problems. As such, I would like to get 1.3 out the door ASAP. I
would appreciate if you could file a bug report so that the JCL 1.1 can be
dealt with promptly, as in SLF4J
Hello Eric and all,
Eric Crahen wrote:
Along those same lines a protected default constructor would help too
On 2/12/07, *Eric Crahen* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do the NOPLogger methods need to be final? I was hoping to
subclass this for use in unit testing.
Hello,
Eric Crahen wrote:
I've been using the SLF4J API in some of my work and one thing about
it that makes it very awkward, from a dependency mangement standpoint,
is that one of the core APIs - the LoggerFactory - is actually not a
part of the slf4j-api package. Instead, its actually
compiled a
reference to a specific class into the LoggerFactory and that is not
what has happened. This still is a runtime binding.
yes.
On 2/15/07, *Boris Unckel* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
factory = f;
if(f == null) {
// TODO
Hello Ceki,
Von: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the pointer. Have you followed the SLF4J debate raging on TSS?
yes, it has the default quality of public forums. People have one look at
the homepage and judge about the strategy.
It was not aggressive as the standard flame war but I did
Hello,
slf4j is in discussion at commons-dev
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11419663361r=1w=2
Regards
Boris
___
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Hello,
I have found several return (returnvalue); statements in slf4j like
return (attributes.get(name));.
What is the difference between return retvalue; and return (retvalue); -
with and without braces?
Is there no technical difference and this is just style and fashion?
Is the bytecode the
Hello all,
1) The MarkingLogger interface was not used by anyone. Thus, its
dissapperance will affect end-users nor bindings of the SLF4J API,
e.g. NLOG4J or x4juli.
It is a to be done for x4juli.
2) Given their signatures, the newly *added* methods to the Logger
interface do not affect
Hello all,
1) The MarkingLogger interface was not used by anyone. Thus, its
dissapperance will affect end-users nor bindings of the SLF4J API,
e.g. NLOG4J or x4juli.
It is a to be done for x4juli.
2) Given their signatures, the newly *added* methods to the Logger
interface do not affect
Hello Ceki,
I intend to merge methods in MarkingLogger back into Logger with the
understanding that the bindings for logging systems without marker
support would simply ignore the Marker data (as was the vase prior to
SLF4J 1.0beta8).
Comments?
I am anxious to see LogBack - does the name
My last mail did not correspond to the actual changes in svn. Some of my
questions/points found answers through that.
I intend to merge methods in MarkingLogger back into Logger with the
understanding that the bindings for logging systems without marker
support would simply ignore the Marker
Hello,
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
There may be another solution: The only difference betwen the default
JDK14LoggerFactory and X4JuliLoggerFactory is that X4JuliLoggerFactory
has a
compile-time dependendy to x4juli and detects wheter to use native
interface
or the normal wrapper class approach.
It
Hello,
I had a mail conversation where the developer of another JUL-extension asked
whether my object handling (for Messages with objects or object/object[]
paramters) is exception safe or not.
He argues, a logging operation should never lead to an exception in the
using system, except the
A first DRAFT of a solution in x4juli, solving the symptom not the reason.
/**
* Method especially for public slf4j log methods which have an object
or object[]
* as parameter for the message formatting.
* @param level is not allowed to be null.
* @param message to format
19 matches
Mail list logo
