Elias Ross wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 09:32 -0800, Mark Womack wrote:
So, I don't remember if anything specific has already been applied to
1.3 for the deadlock issue (Elias can speak to that better probably).
Nothing in particular was applied. (I don't have commit access to apply
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 09:32 -0800, Mark Womack wrote:
> So, I don't remember if anything specific has already been applied to
> 1.3 for the deadlock issue (Elias can speak to that better probably).
Nothing in particular was applied. (I don't have commit access to apply
changes either to effectu
Mark Womack wrote:
So, I don't remember if anything specific has already been applied to
1.3 for the deadlock issue (Elias can speak to that better probably).
However, it is an issue that will be addressed in 1.3 in the near
future. We've been very reluctant to make any of these kinds of
chan
On 11/29/05, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appreciate the forthright responses from you, Curt, and others.
No reason for anything else from anyone here. We all want to do the
right thing.
> I apologize for getting a bit hot on these issues. It would be good if
> the 1.3 documentati
Jess Holle wrote:
Finally, I hope to get a chance to chase the lack of appender removal
and log level change event firings and propose patches for these issues
as well.
Attached is a patch that adds event firing upon appender removal and
log level change.
Please take this patch. The only
P.S. I filed bug #37735
on this and attached the patch to it.
Jess Holle wrote:
Okay, first off, I must apologize for going off half-cocked and
somewhat rudely after running into issues earlier this week.
Secondly, I must admit that I was way offbase on some of my analysis of
the binar
Okay, first off, I must apologize for going off half-cocked and
somewhat rudely after running into issues earlier this week.
Secondly, I must admit that I was way offbase on some of my analysis of
the binary compatibility issue due to:
Too much haste (making waste) in trying to get the prob
Is log4j using SVN or CVS at this point? Is HEAD reasonably stable
at the moment? If so, I can tinker with this and propose diffs.
SVN:
http://logging.apache.org/site/repositories.html
Head is very stable at the moment.
cheers,
Paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signa
I ran a little static analyzer over the pile of 3rd-party libraries we
happen to be using at the moment to search out known binary
compatibilities issues with log4j 1.3 and existing libraries.
Some findings:
Usages of methods that will break binary compatibility.
Class Referenc
Mark Womack wrote:
Jess,
There are more class/source/binary incompatibilities in the 1.3 alpha
version of log4j than most people are happy with. You are not the
first to outline them. Curt Arnold has also detailed a number that he
was concerned about. It is an item that will be addressed
ld like to see you
involved in the process.
-Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Jess Holle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Log4J Developers List"
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Log4j 1.3 Woes
I just about a day and a half trying to get my c
Curt Arnold wrote:
There were two fairly long threads this summer on the
topics raised in this thread (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-
dev&m=111901190409097&w=2 and http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=11209413893&r=1&w=2). I haven't seen any new issues
here, just a reiteration that w
I would love to see some of that code. I think that richer JMX integration in Log4j would help out a lot in larger Enterprise applications that need to alter logging configs at run time.
On 11/28/05, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Smith wrote:
On a side note, you mentioned y
There were two fairly long threads this summer on the topics raised
in this thread (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-
dev&m=111901190409097&w=2 and http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=11209413893&r=1&w=2). I haven't seen any new issues here, just
a reiteration that we are not in a happ
Paul Smith wrote:
It would really seem that there has been no attempt along these
lines to date. logj4 1.3 is currently only an alpha so issues are
to be expected at this point, *but* I believe binary compatibility
and removal of Category and Priority are mutually exclusive. [I'd
be hap
Paul Smith wrote:
On a side note, you mentioned you have done a lot of work
in the JMX area for log4j.. Would you be interested in floating what
you have done to the community, and if we think it's good, consider
donating it? (it's a bit of a legal process, and likely to require
your comp
It would really seem that there has been no attempt along these
lines to date. logj4 1.3 is currently only an alpha so issues are
to be expected at this point, *but* I believe binary compatibility
and removal of Category and Priority are mutually exclusive. [I'd
be happy to be proven wr
Paul Smith wrote:
On 29/11/2005, at 7:47 AM, Elias Ross wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:07 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
What is breaking so much source code and many existing binaries really
buying?
In my opinion, removing "Category" would be just like Sun deciding to
remove "java.util.Emumer
I believe that's indicative of the sort of decision making log4j 1.3's
current state forces.
I'm sure (or at least highly hopeful) that a lot of good work has gone
into 1.3 but:
We need a deadlock fix sooner rather than later in 1.2 if not 1.3.
1.3 *must* maintain better compatibility wit
On 29/11/2005, at 7:47 AM, Elias Ross wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:07 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
What is breaking so much source code and many existing binaries
really
buying?
In my opinion, removing "Category" would be just like Sun deciding to
remove "java.util.Emumeration" or some ot
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:07 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
>
> What is breaking so much source code and many existing binaries really
> buying?
In my opinion, removing "Category" would be just like Sun deciding to
remove "java.util.Emumeration" or some other classes now marked as
"deprecated."
I know
Jess Holle wrote:
Also give that most legacy libraries won't be recompiled against a
hypothetical 1.2.13 real soon, there is still something to be said for
either:
Reintroducing Category and Priority
Sure their existence is ugly but how much did they *really*
hurt anyone?
Another binary compatibility issue:
The 1.3 introduction of put(String,String) in MDC produces
a binary that is incompatible with any log4j 1.2.x whenever the
compiler knows the type of the second argument to be String (which is
usually the case).
This can, of course, be avoided by casting suc
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. As log4j 1.3 now stands, I'd think it would be tempting to
repackage all of log4j 1.3 in org.apache.log4j2.* and call it
log4j 2.0. That way you could have log4j 1.2 and 1.3/2.0 in the same
classloader at the same time without having to worry about some legacy
librar
P.S. As log4j 1.3 now stands, I'd think it would be tempting to
repackage all of log4j 1.3 in org.apache.log4j2.* and call it
log4j 2.0. That way you could have log4j 1.2 and 1.3/2.0 in the same
classloader at the same time without having to worry about some legacy
library that requires 1.2.x
I just about a day and a half trying to get my code to be log4j 1.3
compatible while still being log4j 1.2.12+ compatible. Note this was
despite the fact that I reviewed the 1.3 compatibility guidelines prior
to writing any of this code. I clearly stepped over the lines in
various areas, but
26 matches
Mail list logo
