On Sep 19, 2005, at 7:15 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Back to the main point of this thread: do we really need
JoranConfigurator at
all? I agree it can be modified to work with log4j 1.3, but I
wonder if it's
necessary at all. It has some advantages over the DOMConfigurator,
sure, but
perhap
Hi,
> I agree, but I'm worried about the fact that our user base would rightfully
> be ticked if we forced them to change something that didn't have to change:
> terminology vs. semantics. We have a large user base using configs with this
> terminology - let's not make life difficult on them when
m when we don't have to.
Not to mention all of our examples use category, not logger.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 9/18/2005 7:53 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: JoranConfigurator problems
At 11:28 PM 9/17/2005 -0700, you wrote
At 11:28 PM 9/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>I've noticed two issues with an xml-based configuration that works fine with
>the 1.2.x jars but does not work using log4j 1.3x alpha jars:
>
>1. An appender that's defined but not referenced is still constructed and
>activateOptions is called (the IRC appe
I've noticed two issues with an xml-based configuration that works fine with
the 1.2.x jars but does not work using log4j 1.3x alpha jars:
1. An appender that's defined but not referenced is still constructed and
activateOptions is called (the IRC appender in the example below)
2. Using a 'cate
