Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

On Friday 24 May 2002 23:37, Kevin Steppe wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > SQL is by default an evil thing and should not be exposed to users, nor > > programmers. > > That is rather opinionated, just like the following: > SQL is by default an incredibly elegant, simple, and powerful > programmi

Re: Watchdog

At 13:13 24.05.2002 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: >I am hoping to get started on the watchdog implementation in the next week. > >1) How would people prefer I start? By checking in my current >implementation, or would folks be interested in reviewing it prior to >checkin? I have a small preference t

[PATCH[ FAQ.html

Hi everyone, Just came across a small type while waiting for my tests to finish ;)) Have fun.. Index: FAQ.html === RCS file: /home/cvspublic/jakarta-log4j/docs/FAQ.html,v retrieving revision 1.15 diff -u -r1.15 FAQ.html

Watchdog

I am hoping to get started on the watchdog implementation in the next week. 1) How would people prefer I start? By checking in my current implementation, or would folks be interested in reviewing it prior to checkin? 2) When I do check in the code, under what package should it be checked in unde

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9397] New: - org/apache/log4j/jmx/T.java missing package statement.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9285] - SyslogWriter 's bug for multibyte enviroment

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

AW: Making Log4j even more compatible with java.util.logging

Ceki Gülcü wrote: [snip] > Introducing isLoggable(), severe(), and warning() seems easy > enough. Adding new levels SEVERE and WARNING is a diffent matter. For > example, if the SEVERE level has the same integer value as ERROR but a > different String representation, when transmitted across the

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9394] - Test for Moderation...

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9394] New: - Test for Moderation...

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Making Log4j even more compatible with java.util.logging

At 16:16 24.05.2002 +0200, Wolf Siberski wrote: >Log4j seems to be already on the way to provide the same API as the >1.4 java.util.logging package (introduction of Logger and Level, >deprecation of Category and Priority). >Logger and Level classes are nearly compatible to its java.util.logging >c

[TEST] This really should not go into the moderator's queue...

Sorry everyone... I'm trying to mak Jon's life easier! :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

log4j 1.2.3 now available

Greetings to all, Log4j developers are proud to announce the release log4j version 1.2.3 which fixes two relatively minor bugs. The docs/HISTORY file reads: May 24th, 2002, - Release of version 1.2.3 - Fixed bug #9285 where the SyslogAppender would incorrectly compute the length of

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Sorry, but I don't buy this argument. > SQL is by default an evil thing and should not be exposed to users, nor > programmers. That is rather opinionated, just like the following: SQL is by default an incredibly elegant, simple, and powerful programming language -- in

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9268] - Chainsaw does not load xml log files properly

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

> >> Problems: >> addBatch is an optional method in Statement. It is not guarenteed >> to be implemented by all drivers (in fact it is not implemented in >> the mySQL driver I use). >> Your logEvents table definition is not valid on all databases. And >> in fact it's not valid on -most-

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9268] - Chainsaw does not load xml log files properly

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Making Log4j even more compatible with java.util.logging

Log4j seems to be already on the way to provide the same API as the 1.4 java.util.logging package (introduction of Logger and Level, deprecation of Category and Priority). Logger and Level classes are nearly compatible to its java.util.logging counterpart, but there are some methods and constan

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9291] - Default Initialization Procedure doc misleading

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9285] - SyslogWriter 's bug for multibyte enviroment

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

At 12:26 22.05.2002 -0700, Kevin Steppe wrote: >Ceki et al., > >First, my apologies for being terse in my message, I'm just short on time >this month. Sure. >Problems: > addBatch is an optional method in Statement. It is not guarenteed to > be implemented by all drivers (in fact it is not i