On 05/04/2007, at 6:51 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
I didn't know about the MDC treatment -- I'll have to look into that.
Otherwise, I knew that #2 and #3 were covered by the existing
Chainsaw. I just didn't want to give up any of that to get #1
covered -- and don't personally see any value in p
> -Original Message-
> From: Jess Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:21 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
>
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's been said before that 1.3
I didn't know about the MDC treatment -- I'll have to look into that.
Otherwise, I knew that #2 and #3 were covered by the existing Chainsaw.
I just didn't want to give up any of that to get #1 covered -- and don't
personally see any value in porting Chainsaw to logback to achieve #1
either.
One more clarification:
Chainsaw V2 uses log4j 1.3alpha internally because of log4j 1.3's support of
receivers and new methods on LoggingEvent.
Chainsaw V2 can process events generated by -any- of the log4j 1.2 appenders,
minus the limitations Paul mentioned re: serial incompatibility of Loca
# 1 is relatively easy to achieve (it should be sufficient to add some
constructors and accessors to loggingevent in the 1.2 stream)
#2 is already there (sockethubreceiver, socketreceiver, logfilexmlreceiver,
file/open xml files in the UI)
#3 is already there - MDC entries show up as individual c
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd be keen to consider starting Chainsaw v3 from scratch along side
any post-log4j1.3-type operation and build in exceptional support for
enterprise log management, but I'm only one person, and I know many
of us are incredibly busy, but we were so active there for a while I
thi
I agree - the ability to log objects instead of strings only provides some
capabilities which aren't available otherwise - filters are an example (see
reflectionfilter & mapfilter in 1.3alpha).
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be more of a dead end than
anything else. Some interesting things went into it, but the fact
that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx is a real problem.
Is it worth a release or do
At 06:51 AM 4/4/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
Yes, I've found the "drop log4j for logback"
stuff from Ceki a bit disheartening. Well,
actually I found the whole sudden split from
Log4j after a vote that didn't go his way a bit
disheartening. I think the vote went the
correct way, but I wish we
At 11:58 PM 4/3/2007, Jess Holle wrote:
Cu
For a 1.4.x or 2.0.x, I'm not so concerned about breaking extensions.
I'm more concerned about breaking "application"
code -- i.e. use of the logging APIs for logging
and for configuration thereof, including
sophisticated code that adds hierarchy
At 11:34 PM 4/3/2007, Curt Arnold wrote:
Unfortunately, log4j 1.3 development proceed for a substantial amount
of time with little concern with compatibility with compatibility
with log4j 1.2 and the primary developer of log4j 1.3 has left for
other projects. We are left trying to remedy the si
At 07:51 PM 4/3/2007, Curt Arnold wrote:
There are still API incompatibilities
(http://people.apache.org/
~carnold/compatibility.html), particularly any user extensions of
DOMConfigurator (bug 39024) would not work with log4j 1.3.
LoggingEvent is not serialization compatible (bug 35159).
Logg
At 09:09 AM 4/3/2007, Paul Smith wrote:
My somewhat superficial scan over logback shows a lot of promise from
an end user point of view. I would certainly be interested in
exploring that as an option. This is where licenses, politics and
marketing all come to a head which are never fun.
:-)
At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be
more of a dead end than anything else. Some
interesting things went into it, but the fact
that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx
is a real problem. Is it worth a release or do
we just leave it
Quoting Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> > >Did you set the SVN password by running svnpass on your account on
> > >people.apache.org? Maybe you should try to set it again in case it
> > >was reset.
> > >
> >
> > Was I supposed to do something
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
>Did you set the SVN password by running svnpass on your account on
>people.apache.org? Maybe you should try to set it again in case it
>was reset.
>
Was I supposed to do something like this? To tell you the truth,
I'm not sure I've checked any
Quoting Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> bear in mind that svn can use multiple connections to communicate,
> and often asks you for each connection. I've seen this before,
> usually it's only 3 times, and then it seems to work.
>
I had thought about that, but TortoiseSVN provides a checkbox to
log4j 1.3 in my opinion is stuck in a hopeless position. It is too
incompatible with log4j 1.2.x to ever be recommended as a drop-in
replacement for log4j 1.2 in a production environment. However, if
you changed log4j 1.3 to be drop-in compatible with log4j 1.2, then
you would break any
18 matches
Mail list logo
