RE: More Filter Thoughts

Hi Mark, As the previous email notes indicate, there is some confusion regarding the ternary logic in log4j filters. Log4j filters are based on the same structure as Linux ipchains (called iptables in Linux 2.4). The ternary logic allows the *composition* of filters, meaning that one can assembl

Watchdog/Reconfigurator Nickel Tour

As promised, here is a review of the current Watchdog/Reconfigurator premise, design, and implementation. PLEASE feel free to make comments and suggestions. Also note that the version of the code at the bottom of this message that will be placed in cvs will have the correct package/class name et

Re: Bugs being posted to dev list

We should have done this ages ago. At 10:03 29.05.2002 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >Safe to say that; >a) It is very good for the active developers. >b) It may be subjective to personal taste for everyone else. > >It is a developers' list, so keep what is good for the developers. Everyone >els

Re: Bugs being posted to dev list

Safe to say that; a) It is very good for the active developers. b) It may be subjective to personal taste for everyone else. It is a developers' list, so keep what is good for the developers. Everyone else, if they don't like it, can EASILY filter it in the mail client on the subject line. N

Re: More Filter Thoughts

I have been implementing AND / OR functionality in various scenarios before and I think the easiest way is to create a GROUP class that is a subclass of or implements (sorry hasn't looked at it yet) the Filter (in this case). It basically goes like this; public interface Filter { boole

FW: Returned mail: User unknown

I keep getting this message whenever I post to the dev list. Can we please remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list? thanks, -Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:27 PM To: Mark Womack Subject: Returned mail: User unknown

RE: More Filter Thoughts

Scott, Yes, the basic filter functionality provides what you have outlined. My point, and I did not make it clear, is that the filter implementations that ship with log4j in the varia package do not support configuring "AND" filter chains because they are limited by the AcceptOnMatch functionali

Re: More Filter Thoughts

I'm not well versed on filters - but can't you chain them to get the "AND" functionality that you require? Filter A - if a == true pass to filter B Filter B - if b == true pass to logger. Or is there extra functionality that I am missing? Is it actually possible to chain filters as in above?

More Filter Thoughts

When implementing some filters this weekend I found that there is a flaw in the set of filters that log4j provides in the varia package, at least in my opinion. Primarily, using the AcceptOnMatch property, it is very easy to create a filter chain of "OR" type tests, but very difficult to create a

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9462] - make default initialization available as a public method

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 9459] - org.apache.log4j.varia.LevelRangeFilter is missing from 1.2.3

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: Bugs being posted to dev list

So, I have to ask...what is the opinion about having the bug messages posted to the dev list? Personally, I like it. Before this I had no idea when bugs were added/closed/etc. It has certainly increased the posts to this mailing list. Now if I can just fix a couple of them... -Mark -- To uns

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9462] - make default initialization available as a public method

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: Watchdog

> Do you have any concepts to add since the last proposal? Not much. Just some changes and helper methods in the base class. I have been focusing on making the base class as useful and functional as possible for those that need to write their own reconfigurator. I will start with a small "tour

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9462] New: - make default initialization available as a public method

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 9459] New: - org.apache.log4j.varia.LevelRangeFilter is missing from 1.2.3

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] - Chainsaw incorrectly loads priority (level) from XML log file

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] - Chainsaw incorrectly loads priority (level) from XML log file

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 23:06 27.05.2002 -0700, Kevin Steppe wrote: >>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 poin

Re: Watchdog

At 23:25 24.05.2002 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote: >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

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9435] - Chainsaw incorrectly loads priority (level) from XML log file

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