http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160
Summary: slf4j throw NullPointerException in singed applet
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P1
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #68 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-23 19:59:25 ---
(In reply to comment #65)
> Janos (boci.b...@gmail.com),
>
> Even if everyone on the planet was using JDK 1.7, SLF4J would still need to
> ensure binary compatibility with previous versio
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159
--- Comment #1 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-11-22 00:09:26 ---
I started working this issue. Unfortunately, the required changes are more
extensive than I had expected. I am going it to leave it as is for the time
being.
--
Configure bugmail: http://b
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #13 from Hugues Malphettes 2009-11-17
20:29:55 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=66)
--> (http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/attachment.cgi?id=66) [details]
> Same patch with the 1.5.5 version for the import-packaged
>
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Hugues Malphettes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #63 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #67 from Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen 2009-11-16
19:56:00 ---
(In reply to comment #64)
> > Please be aware that slf4j serves many people with many different needs, and
> > that Java is the new Cobol. Literally :)
> >
>
> Some place w
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159
Summary: Default to a behavior when no adapter found in the
classpath
Product: SLF4J
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL: http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernat
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #66 from boci 2009-11-16 11:11:12 ---
(In reply to comment #65)
> Janos (boci.b...@gmail.com),
>
> Even if everyone on the planet was using JDK 1.7, SLF4J would still need to
> ensure binary compatibility with previous versions.
>
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #65 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-11-16 11:00:01 ---
Janos (boci.b...@gmail.com),
Even if everyone on the planet was using JDK 1.7, SLF4J would still need to
ensure binary compatibility with previous versions.
If in project P you have depen
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #64 from boci 2009-11-16 09:38:18 ---
(In reply to comment #62)
> (In reply to comment #58)
>
> > Disagree. Runtime compatibility is not required. Java 1.4 is dead. I think
> > only
> > bugfix release need for 1.4 compatible slf4j.
>
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #63 from Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen 2009-11-16
09:26:55 ---
(In reply to comment #61)
> Bug #133 is one such issue, something that I would have needed on several
> occasions, one of which was the bridging of XSLT messages to SLF4J. Bein
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@runjva.com
--- Comment #62
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #61 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-15 19:16:48 ---
Concerning comment #56 and comment #31:
The only downside is the possibility of separate maintenance in case of bug
fixes, if necessary and critical enough.
We are all in agreement that c
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #60 from Mark A. Ziesemer 2009-11-15
03:05:50 ---
In response to comment #58 and comment #59:
How is "Runtime compatibility is not required" a disagreement to comment #56,
as stated? It seems that maybe everyone is in agreement, and
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #59 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-15 01:42:07 ---
And I will reiterate that adding the support to LoggerWrapper as I did on my
fork is the proper compromise. Those who want the support obviously are OK with
Java 5 which slf4j-ext requires a
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #58 from boci 2009-11-14 20:08:06 ---
(In reply to comment #56)
> Sorry, I was not clear in my previous response. I had understood that
> the use of the new logger was optional which is the point of keeping
> the old one untouched.
>
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #57 from Mark A. Ziesemer 2009-11-14
19:33:28 ---
+1 for comment #56, comment #31.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee fo
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #56 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-11-14 18:44:45 ---
Sorry, I was not clear in my previous response. I had understood that
the use of the new logger was optional which is the point of keeping
the old one untouched.
The issue is about educating
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #55 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-14 17:45:22 ---
No, no, no, nobody *has* to change their slf4j-imports, It's entirely optional.
The original SLF4J-API would be left untouched.
The same is the case for binding. They would stay the same.
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #54 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-11-14 12:41:26 ---
Any migration to from the current API to a new API must be transparent. Just
keep in mind that for some users, having to install a binding, such as
slf4j-jdk14.jar or slf4j-log4j12.jar, is al
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #9 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-13 17:38:21 ---
Concerning putAll, I've seen in your prev. comment that you hadn't finished it
yet and I just wanted to save you some time while I was checking out your
changes anyway.
I suggested ("{}",
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #8 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-13 15:46:58 ---
There is little point in specifying logger.debug("{}", data); the structured
data object contains a message field so when structured data is present the
"normal" message text wouldn't be use
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #7 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-13 11:24:01 ---
This all sounds quite reasonable now.
The only (small) inconsistency that could be an issue is the following line in
your sample code in http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148#c2:
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #6 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-12 02:29:48 ---
I've made the updates to make the Map unmodifiable and to expose the new
methods. I still have a few changes to make to enforce the 32 character
limitations.
--
Configure bugmail: http://
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Hugues Malphettes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hmalphet...@intalio.com
--- Comment #1
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #10 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-11-11 09:19:52 ---
Hi Hugues,
Instead of hard-coding the version number of the org.slf4j.impl import
as 1.5.6 to match that exported by logback-classic, I modified the
logback-classic to export the slf4j versi
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
Hugues Malphettes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #64 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
--- Comment #4 from Hugues Malphettes 2009-11-11
00:40:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=64)
--> (http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/attachment.cgi?id=64)
generate osgi compliant Bundle-Version when version ends with "-SNAPSHOT"
It turns out the ant rep
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
--- Comment #3 from Hugues Malphettes 2009-11-10
23:50:40 ---
In a similar situation I used
http://mojo.codehaus.org/build-helper-maven-plugin/parse-version-mojo.html
1- invoke it (in the parent pom to not copy-paste it everywhere)
org.codeh
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
--- Comment #2 from Eddy 2009-11-10 23:40:45 ---
Yes, this has been addressed by the fix for (duplicate?) bug #157
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
It is fixed in
http://github.com/ceki/slf4j/commit/e967f5135e1bd2eb0d3165ec08cdb7a35
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #9 from Hugues Malphettes 2009-11-10
23:35:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=63)
--> (http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/attachment.cgi?id=63)
patch to the slf4j.api pom to support logback-classic in osgi (equinox)
Hi there, I just tried to b
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #53 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 23:32:30 ---
Concerning the order of Throwable and parameters, I can only state that
everyone that made the mistake of putting both parameters and Throwable into a
logging method, expecting the Throwab
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
Hugues Malphettes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hmalphet...@intalio.com
--- Comment #
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-10 22:39:54 ---
I should have also mentioned that it was necessary to add StructuredData to api
instead of ext because Logback classic has no dependency on slfj-ext currently.
Adding that as a dependency fo
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #4 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-10 22:35:19 ---
Thanks.
Yes, the placeholders work as you noted. That was actually an afterthought I
had. It was pretty cool that Logback already had the code to do it.
I had forgotten about the javadoc
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #3 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 21:50:47 ---
Concerning 1.):
Ah, I think I understand.
I guess that "Hello ${Name}" would reference "Name" in the StructuredData,
right, and the actually logged message would be "Hello Ralph", enabling
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #52 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-10 19:59:10 ---
Thanks for the comment.
I'm not sure what the importance of "simpler" is. I'd prefer an API that has
all the methods I'd like to use which includes entry, exit, etc. But since this
was adde
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-10 19:32:22 ---
Thanks for looking at this
1. The data field is modified by calling getData() and then manipulating the
Map.
Here is some sample code:
String id = "Audit";
String msg = "T
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148
Joern Huxhorn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jo...@huxhorn.de
--- Comment #1 from Joer
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #51 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 17:38:41 ---
Ralph, I haven't missed your comment.
We aim for different things, though.
While XLogger extends Logger (which is fine by me) I tried to actually reduce
the API while staying compile-tim
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #50 from Ralph Goers 2009-11-10 15:45:57 ---
Let's try this again as it appears everyone has missed my previous comment.
I have added support for varargs to LoggerWrapper on my fork at
git://github.com/rgoers/slf4j.git. This also cont
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #49 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 13:58:46 ---
Alternatively, you could also give my implementation a try.
The dependency is
de.huxhorn.lilith
de.huxhorn.lilith.slf4j
0.9.36
but please be aware that I'll deprecate it a
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #48 from boci 2009-11-10 12:46:19 ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> I guess this won't be included in the very near future ;)
>
> SLF4J 2.0 must stay compatible with 1.5.x because there can be only one
> version
> of SLF4J on the class
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #47 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 12:31:38 ---
I guess this won't be included in the very near future ;)
SLF4J 2.0 must stay compatible with 1.5.x because there can be only one version
of SLF4J on the classpath and SLF4J is widely use
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #46 from boci 2009-11-10 11:57:41 ---
Nice, i hope the new slf4j released asap (which include these bugfix/feature).
I don't understand why want fully backward (binary) compatible the next (2.0 or
5.0 ;) slf4j version. I think more th
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #45 from Joern Huxhorn 2009-11-10 11:50:06 ---
I've given redesigning SLF4J for JDK>=1.5 a try some time ago.
This is a concept at the moment and could be enhanced. I'd volunteer to do just
that if this idea is approved.
Please take
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #44 from boci 2009-11-09 14:02:45 ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> (In reply to comment #40)
> > The problem is not in the implementation but the change in the
> > org.slf4j.Logger
> > interface. Adding methods to an interface is not b
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
boci changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boci.b...@gmail.com
--- Comment #43 from boci 200
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158
Joern Huxhorn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jo...@huxhorn.de
--- Comment #3 from Joer
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #10 from Pete Muir 2009-10-29 19:25:39 ---
Yes, we have verified slf4j 156 and 157 and CAL-8 and CAL-9 are all fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail becau
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #9 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-29 19:24:31 ---
Does this mean we are go for a public release of 1.5.9RC1 and cal10n 0.7.2?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail beca
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #8 from Pete Muir 2009-10-29 19:21:57 ---
Roger Kitain has verified these fixes in GlassFish.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #7 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-29 15:15:55 ---
removed cruft. should be fine now:
http://git.qos.ch/gitweb/?p=slf4j.git;a=commit;h=58e6b11530ab61312326b4d5f4bf43900797d650
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #6 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-29 15:10:58 ---
applied
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #5 from Pete Muir 2009-10-29 15:00:42 ---
The applied patch appears to be missing the export
"org.slf4j.ext;version=${project.version}" which allows people to use XLogger
Here is a patch.
diff --git a/slf4j-ext/src/main/resources/ME
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #4 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-29 14:55:39 ---
Patch applied [1]. The export and import clauses now actually makes sense.
Sorry about the 0.7 version declaration instead of ${cal10n.version}.
[1]
http://github.com/ceki/slf4j/commit/43350
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
Pete Muir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #62|Fix exports, add import on |Add export on org.slf4j.ext
description|c
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
--- Comment #2 from Pete Muir 2009-10-29 13:34:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=62)
--> (http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/attachment.cgi?id=62)
Fix exports, add import on cal10n, use property in POM
I believe that slf4j-ext should be importing ch.qos.
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158
--- Comment #2 from Marco Behler 2009-10-29 13:21:57 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hello Marci,
>
> Try the following syntax:
>
> logger.debug("Bla bla {}", new Object[] {stringArray});
>
Hi Ceki,
this works almost as expected. Just a bit
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158
--- Comment #1 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-29 12:32:03 ---
Hello Marci,
Try the following syntax:
logger.debug("Bla bla {}", new Object[] {stringArray});
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are r
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158
Summary: Placeholder resolution for logger method varargs
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
--- Comment #4 from Pete Muir 2009-10-29 11:21:48 ---
Roger Kitain confirmed this fix works.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
--- Comment #12 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-28 18:32:33 ---
I am also curious. What is that behavior described?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are th
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
--- Comment #2 from Pete Muir 2009-10-28 17:33:13 ---
In the interest of user-friendliness, and promoting community testing of
release candidates, I would argue that they should be usable in all places the
release is. But this is a philosophical
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
Ralph Goers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rgo...@apache.org
--- Comment #1 from Ralph
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157
Summary: slf4j-* uses invalid OSGi version in bundle headers
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Mac OS X 10.3
Status: NEW
Severity: blocker
Priority:
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156
Summary: slf4j-ext OSGi bundle headers need updating for cal10n
support
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Mac OS X 10.3
Status: NEW
Severi
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
Joern Huxhorn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jo...@huxhorn.de
--- Comment #11 from Joe
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
Łukasz Rżanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukasz.rza...@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 f
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155
Summary: Manage Multiple SLF4J-Implementations
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154
Summary: slf4j-api reports an incompatibility problem
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: blocker
Priority: P1
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153
akuhtz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153
--- Comment #3 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-20 19:21:38 ---
The class loader which loaded your application is probably nulling all static
variables in all classes it loaded. Tomcat's WebClassLoader is known to to this
sort of clean up. It's not an SLF
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153
--- Comment #2 from akuhtz 2009-10-20 19:15:18 ---
This is the stacktrace that I can see in the logfile. Unfortunately I cannot
provide a testcase as I see this only during shutdown of a appserver instance
;-(
2009-10-20 13:26:26.245 ERROR [STDE
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153
--- Comment #1 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-10-20 19:06:55 ---
Can you provide a complete stack trace? A test case would be appreciated as
well.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mai
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153
Summary: NPE in SLF4JLocationAwareLog during application shutdown
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priori
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
syvalta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syva...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #9 from syvalta
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121
Eddy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ecorb...@gmail.com
--
Configure bugmail: http://b
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152
Summary: Bundle manifest headers have invalid version
specifications in SLF4J version 1.5.9-RC0
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150
Rick Beton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Teeter 2009-09-30 20:31:40 ---
I've encountered this same issue on Weblogic 9.1, 9.2, and 10.0, which does not
happen on Tomcat. I've filed a bug with Oracle on 9/2/2009 and they are
looking into it. Nevertheless, it
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Nicolas Lalevée changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
Nicolas Lalevée changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lis...@qos.ch
Status|ASSIGNED
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151
Ceki Gulcu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Ceki Gulcu 20
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151
Summary: jcl104-over-slf4j should not be producing a jar file
Product: SLF4J
Version: 1.5.x
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Mac OS X 10.3
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
Stephen Duncan Jr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stephen.dun...@gmail.com
--
Configur
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #42 from Ralph Goers 2009-09-17 08:15:53 ---
I have added support for varargs to LoggerWrapper on my fork at
git://github.com/rgoers/slf4j.git. This also contains changes in support of
bugs 127 and 148. To take advantage of this use XL
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
Robert Elliot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rob...@teviotia.co.uk
--- Comment #7 from
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138
--- Comment #6 from Łukasz Rżanek 2009-09-15
23:54:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=61)
--> (http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/attachment.cgi?id=61)
Proposed solution?
The solution proposed in the discussion linked above actually works great. I've
att
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #41 from Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen 2009-09-15
21:53:11 ---
Ah, forgot that Logger is an interface and not a class. Bummer.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail b
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #40 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-09-15 21:29:50 ---
The problem is not in the implementation but the change in the org.slf4j.Logger
interface. Adding methods to an interface is not backward compatible...
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzill
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #39 from Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen 2009-09-15
20:56:32 ---
I was just thinking that
info(... Object o1, Object o2, Object o3)
could be implemented in slf4j itself by just calling
info( ... new Object[] {o1, o2, o3})
instead. Th
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #38 from Ceki Gulcu 2009-09-15 18:41:13 ---
> Since Object... is just a short cut for the compiler doing a new
> Object[] under the covers, would a reasonable and compatible approach
> be adding convenience methods for up to e.g. ten o
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
--- Comment #37 from Mark A. Ziesemer 2009-09-15
18:28:27 ---
In response to comment #36, please don't add any additional arbitrary limits.
Is 10 any better than 2? Why not 20? I don't have the source code in front of
me, but wouldn't this als
http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thorbjo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 891 matches
Mail list logo
