Re: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

ok, only Ceki's vote to go, and I understand he's still recovering from some hardware problems. In a recent mail, Ceki intimated he was, in principle, in favour, so I will _begin_ this process locally, but not commit, and wait until Ceki has a chance to cast his vote. cheers, Paul Smith Paul

Re: sub-classing logger - mark as final?

On Feb 23, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote: yes, it is pretty brutal.  I thought if it was 'in the best interests' of the user we could consider it, but as I said, I don't really understand the use cases that may benefit from sub-classing Logger. I've had several discussions with log4cxx u

Re: sub-classing logger - mark as final?

yes, it is pretty brutal.  I thought if it was 'in the best interests' of the user we could consider it, but as I said, I don't really understand the use cases that may benefit from sub-classing Logger. "Nothing to see here, move along now". :D Paul Yoav Shapira wrote: Hola, I don't think

RE: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

+1 from me as well ;) Yoav > -Original Message- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:19 PM > To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org > Subject: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module > > This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS

RE: sub-classing logger - mark as final?

Hola, I don't think we should subclass it as final. That's a radical measure far beyond a recommendation, and we can't assume we know all the use-cases/scenarios under which people might want to subclass Logger. The above applies to most open-source code, especially utility-level stuff like log4j

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j AppenderSkeleton.java

carnold 2005/02/23 16:59:15 Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j AppenderSkeleton.java Log: Iterating on Hivemind breakage Revision ChangesPath 1.37 +20 -18 logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/AppenderSkeleton.java Index: AppenderSkeleton.java ==

sub-classing logger - mark as final?

If we do not recommend sub-classing Logger, should we just mark it as final? (or am I over simplfying things here?). cheers, Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

+1 Jake Quoting Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS module'. > > 1. Propose to move out Chainsaw sources into it's own CVS module, > 'logging-chainsaw'. Chainsaw will rely on a log4j 1.3 build. > > 2. Propose to make the new 'logging

RE: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

+1 -Original Message- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 2/23/2005 1:18 PM To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Cc: Subject:[VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS module'. 1. Propose to move

Re: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

+1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

Since the message was not prefaced with "[VOTE]" I figured this was more a matter of opinion than one of actual voting/deciding. And Paul has subsequently called an official vote. If any logging services project wants to move to SVN ahead of a coordinated effort, who am I to stop them? And I am

RE: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

+1 Engage! > -Original Message- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:19 PM > To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org > Subject: [VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module > > This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS module'. > > 1.

RE: cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/joran/action Action.java RepositoryPropertyAction.java

Ceki, This version of the getLoggerRepository method returns the bottom element of the Joran execution stack (element 0) which is set up by the JoranConfigurator at the start of configuration. Many of the existing actions refer to element 0 to grab the LoggerRepository being configured, but I did

[VOTE]: Chainsaw as seperate module

This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS module'. 1. Propose to move out Chainsaw sources into it's own CVS module, 'logging-chainsaw'. Chainsaw will rely on a log4j 1.3 build. 2. Propose to make the new 'logging-chainsaw' as CVS module, and not use SVN until the entire L

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33717] New: - Leaving out %throwable in ConversionPattern adds throwable to logging message regardless

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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

Ceki Gülcü wrote: At 05:25 PM 2/23/2005, Scott Deboy wrote: I agree, it makes sense to move Chainsaw to its own module. OK. I'll create a module called 'logging-chainsaw' or do you prefer another name? logging-chainsaw is fine by me, I don't mind handling the creation of the module unless you'v

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33708] - XML Configuration of loggerFactory does not work

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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/joran/action Action.java RepositoryPropertyAction.java

Mark, The getLoggerRepository(ExecutionContext ec) method should not be part of the Action class because ComponentBase already knows about its LR. The method getLoggerRepository should be removed from Action and should not have been part of RepositoryPropertyAction. At 06:24 AM 2/22/2005, [EMAI

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/spi ComponentBase.java

ceki2005/02/23 10:37:39 Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j/spi ComponentBase.java Log: Added new getLoggerRepository method to ComponentBase. ComponentBase already knows about its owning LR. Revision ChangesPath 1.6 +9 -0 logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33708] - XML Configuration of loggerFactory does not work

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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

RE: Use NOT the first "log4j.xml" file but the last from classpath

At 06:05 PM 2/23/2005, you wrote: Martin, Others can chime in here, but my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea to include configuration files as part of jar files and changing the default behavior. The configuration of the log4j, what appenders are created, what logger messages are sent to w

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

At 05:51 PM 2/23/2005, Mark Womack wrote: -1 on doing it in Subversion, for now. I think we need to look at the SVN issue as a whole for all of the Logging Services projects and coordinate the jump. Mar, do you really mean to veto the creation of the chainsaw module in SVN? Although I also (much)

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

At 05:25 PM 2/23/2005, Scott Deboy wrote: I agree, it makes sense to move Chainsaw to its own module. OK. I'll create a module called 'logging-chainsaw' or do you prefer another name? I'm not as enthusiastic about making Chainsaw a subproject - I'm not against the idea, but I think the developer

RE: Use NOT the first "log4j.xml" file but the last from classpath

Martin, Others can chime in here, but my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea to include configuration files as part of jar files and changing the default behavior. The configuration of the log4j, what appenders are created, what logger messages are sent to where, all of that should be compl

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

> -Original Message- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:44 PM > To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org > Subject: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module? > > Hey All, > > Chainsaw is getting big. What does everyone think about moving Chainsaw > out into

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

I agree, it makes sense to move Chainsaw to its own module. I'm not as enthusiastic about making Chainsaw a subproject - I'm not against the idea, but I think the developer community (hey, 2 or 3 is a community, right?) is too small to pass LS or Apache's expectations for a self-sustaining proj

Re: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

At 03:44 AM 2/23/2005, Paul Smith wrote: Hey All, Chainsaw is getting big. What does everyone think about moving Chainsaw out into it's own CVS module and making it a 'client' of the log4j library? In Eclipse one can make a Project have a dependency on another project, so that makes it nice from

Use NOT the first "log4j.xml" file but the last from classpath

Hello, Have you already thought about loading per default not the first best "log4j.xml" file? I have several modules like a "core" module. These modules are available as jar files. In each jar file there is a "log4j.xml" file. Now I write my application which has a dependency to the "core" module

Re: Reverting Appender interface

On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:13 AM, Knut Wannheden wrote: The HiveMind appender implementation in question does subclass AppenderSkeleton (ViewCVS: http://tinyurl.com/4w83k). I was wondering if the issue could be resolved if the HiveMind appender would declare an isActive() method and the check above i

Re: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Paul Smith wrote: Spotlight and Indexing service appear to be about finding the file that matches a query, IIRC. With Lucene there is more flexibility. Taking a classic Log file, I've created a lucene Document with 1 Field for each and every line of text in the log

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33708] New: - XML Configuration of loggerFactory does not work

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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

Hi, > There has been so much conversion to subversion recently in other areas > of Jakarta, and I'm sure I read an email somewhere that the goal was to > have everyone over to SVN by the end of the year, but I wouldn't trust > my memory on things... You read correctly: Henri Yandell sent an email

Re: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?

I didn't know about the forced migration, however that might be true. The Jakarta Wiki describes their migration as an "infrastructure desired event". If there is a Subversion migration in our future, then it might be best to try to get all the version control pain over in one shot. The

Re: Reverting Appender interface

Curt Arnold apache.org> writes: > logging-log4j-tests was successful. > > hivemind > (http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/jakarta-hivemind/jakarta- > hivemind/gump_work/build_jakarta-hivemind_jakarta-hivemind.txt) > appeared to fail due the following check in AppenderSkeleton: > >publ