Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

On Apr 29, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: Log4j developers are proud to announce the availability of log4j version 1.2.10. This version adds native support for SLF4J, along with a minor bug fix. The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is intended to serve as a simple facade for various l

Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

Please note that the 1.2.10 release is 100% compatible with previous 1.2 releases. I really was not expecting a controversy surrounding this release. Consequently, I may have rushed it a little, hoping for your continued support and understanding. Forget any controversy or lack thereof, there's su

Re: to-do list

On Apr 29, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: I think we had this discussion before. In past cases, you implemented a particular feature in some way in log4cxx and later tried to impose the exact same feature in the exact same way in log4j. Usually where there has been a request for a feature in

Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: The idea of migration to SLF4J from UGLI was discussed several weeks ago and was received favorably. Moreover, the SLF4J code is not new. Actually, SLF4J has been part of log4j HEAD with a different name (UGLI) for over 10 months. At present time, SLF

Importing code which is X11 (BSD) licensed

There is no question or doubt that the SLF4J license (X11 or BSD) is compatible with Apache Software License, that is (or at least should be) an undisputed fact. Log4j imports the SLF4J source code using subversion in an Ant task, which is perfectly OK from a legal point of view as far as the ASF

RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

The idea of migration to SLF4J from UGLI was discussed several weeks ago and was received favorably. Moreover, the SLF4J code is not new. Actually, SLF4J has been part of log4j HEAD with a different name (UGLI) for over 10 months. At present time, SLF4j is also part of CVS HEAD. SLF4J solves some

Re: UGLI not completely exorcised

That's "normal" because the code comes from UGLI. At 22:08 4/29/2005, you wrote: demon is the slf4j 1.0 beta (LoggerFactoryAdapter.java), there are references to UGLi in the comments. thanks -- Ceki Gülcü The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ --

UGLI not completely exorcised

demon is the slf4j 1.0 beta (LoggerFactoryAdapter.java), there are references to UGLi in the comments. thanks - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: to-do list

I think we had this discussion before. In past cases, you implemented a particular feature in some way in log4cxx and later tried to impose the exact same feature in the exact same way in log4j. The goal of the Apache Logging Services project is to achieve interoperability between various log4* imp

Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

I'm very much concerned. Much of the code in log4j 1.2.10 was only in the CVS a few hours and last night's Gump build failed. It seems amazing for a maintenance release to be rushed so quickly. The following things trouble me: 1. Release of 1.2.10 with no vote 2. Preparation of 1.2.10 candidat

Re: to-do list

On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: Log4j and log4cxx are distinct code bases written in different languages. I oppose any artificial attempts to make Java code mimic C++ particularities, idiosyncrasies, deficiencies or a combination thereof. It is the other way around, log4cxx attempts

RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

Yeah, it does require a PMC vote (and an implied sub-project vote before it goes to the PMC). http://logging.apache.org/site/bylaws.html to wit: Product Release When a release of one of the sub-project's products is ready, a vote is required to accept the release as an official release of the Lo

RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

OK, so I would have voted for the release, but isn't there a process we are supposed to follow here? Something about the sub-project voting and the PMC approving, etc. ? -Mark > -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 11:29 AM > To:

RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

Hi Yoav, Given that this release mimics the code that is already on the main branch, and that it is 100% backward compatible with 1.2.9 (no exceptions, buts or ifs), I do not expect any controversy surrounding this release. Congratulations by the way! :-) At 20:19 4/29/2005, Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi,

RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10

Hi, It would have been nice to have a vote on this release, no? ;) No big deal. Thanks for putting it together so quickly. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Orig

Release of log4j version 1.2.10

Log4j developers are proud to announce the availability of log4j version 1.2.10. This version adds native support for SLF4J, along with a minor bug fix. The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is intended to serve as a simple facade for various logging APIs allowing to the end-user to plug in

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/xdocs/stylesheets project.xml

ceki2005/04/29 10:39:41 Modified:.Tag: v1_2-branch build.xml docs Tag: v1_2-branch FAQ.html src/xdocs download.xml history.xml src/xdocs/stylesheets project.xml Log: Minor chages. Preparing for 1.2.10 PR: Obta

cvs commit: logging-log4j/docs HISTORY.txt FAQ.html HISTORY critique.html deepExtension.html praise.html

ceki2005/04/29 10:07:43 Modified:docs Tag: v1_2-branch FAQ.html Added: docs Tag: v1_2-branch HISTORY.txt Removed: docs Tag: v1_2-branch HISTORY critique.html deepExtension.html praise.html Log: Removing obsolete html files

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 31056] - (PATCH) Console appender doesn't notice changes to System.out/System.err

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: to-do list

Log4j and log4cxx are distinct code bases written in different languages. I oppose any artificial attempts to make Java code mimic C++ particularities, idiosyncrasies, deficiencies or a combination thereof. At 00:36 4/18/2005, Curt Arnold wrote: Having nearly identical tests (when the structure of

Re: Why does SLF4J need to be in log4j, particularly logj4-12 branch?

Have you bothered to look at previous threads regarding the subject? At 17:22 4/29/2005, you wrote: So why does SLF4J need to be integrated into log4j 1.2.x (other than to fix the Gump failure)? Shouldn't SLF4J be able to work with existing logging implementations without their needing to be m

Why does SLF4J need to be in log4j, particularly logj4-12 branch?

So why does SLF4J need to be integrated into log4j 1.2.x (other than to fix the Gump failure)? Shouldn't SLF4J be able to work with existing logging implementations without their needing to be modified? On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ceki2005/04/29 02:55:50 Add

Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project logging-log4j-12 (in module logging-log4j-12) failed

This one was fixed a few minutes ago. Things should go to normal in the next run. List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/slf4j LoggerFactory.java LoggerFactoryAdapter.java ULogger.java

ceki2005/04/29 02:55:50 Added: src/java/org/slf4j Tag: v1_2-branch LoggerFactory.java LoggerFactoryAdapter.java ULogger.java Log: Added missing source files required from gump intergration. PR: Obtained from: Submitted by: Reviewed by:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project logging-ugli (in module logging-log4j) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project logging-ugli has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue affects

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project logging-log4j-12 (in module logging-log4j-12) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project logging-log4j-12 has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue aff