Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 13:57, Kevin Steppe wrote: > The assanine attitude of the vendors towards the standards is indeed > evil. I agree with you whole heartedly on that one. In the abstract > however, I think SQL is wonderful. Then we basically agree. If you could enforce the SQL standard onto

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Kevin Steppe
> > Thank you very much. You can find the JDBC 2.0 spec at > http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/jdbc/index.html Note > that there is no section 6.2 in this version of the spec. I think we should be working off the 3.0 spec at this point. It is intended to be backwards compatible

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Kevin Steppe
Niclas Hedhman wrote: > 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 el

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 05:45, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 14:48 25.05.2002 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >When I say "evil" I mean "current specification is not strict enough and > >allows for the implementation vendors to extend it in all kinds of > >incompatible directions", hence making "pluggabili

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 14:48 25.05.2002 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >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 d

Re: Comments on JDBCAppender

2002-05-27 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 08:14 24.05.2002 -0700, Kevin Steppe wrote: >>>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 data

Branches, was [cvs commit: jakarta-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw]

2002-05-27 Thread Ceki Gülcü
Oliver, Many thanks for spontaneously taking care of this bug. I appreciate it very much. One question though. Shouldn't you commit this fix to the 1.2 branch as the CVS trunk is for log4j 1.3 development only? The command to access the v1_2-branch is: cvs -d XYZ checkout -r v1_2-branch jakart

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9438] New: - Counter of logging-events missing

2002-05-27 Thread bugzilla
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 9435] New: - Chainsaw incorrectly loads priority (level) from XML log file

2002-05-27 Thread bugzilla
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