rnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 5/4/2005 12:22 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject:Re: Reconsideration of features for 1.3 (Re: slf4j and log4j)
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> I agree that LoggingEvent should be serial-compatible with previous
&g
Scott Heaberlin wrote:
>On a related note, I believe the structure of the
>XMLLayout in 1.2.x is incompatible with the xml format needed by
>chainsaw v2 (at least that is what i ran into with early builds of
>v2). If this is still true, then including chainsaw v2 with a 1.2.x
>release will only le
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
I agree that LoggingEvent should be serial-compatible with previous
versions (1.2.7/8 at a minimum).
If Chainsaw were to have its own release cycle, we would release a lot
more often than log4j and also plan releases to coincide with log4j's
releas
Curt Arnold wrote:
On May 4, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Raymond DeCampo wrote:
Mark Womack wrote:
Endre,
So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other
features are important that you feel we are not doing?
This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to see bug 31056 fixed:
http://
e fine with updating their log4j version to a more
recent release in order to avoid the problem.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 5/3/2005 10:49 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject: Re: Reconsideration of featur
On May 4, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Raymond DeCampo wrote:
Mark Womack wrote:
Endre,
So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other
features are important that you feel we are not doing?
This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to see bug 31056 fixed:
http://issues.apache.org/bu
On May 3, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
Chainsaw V2 has too many dependencies on new (1.3) features to be
incorporated into a 1.2.x release without major rework (relies on new
LoggingEvent constructors, receivers, etc.). It's also available via
WebStart, so there is no real value in wor
Mark Womack wrote:
Endre,
So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other
features are important that you feel we are not doing?
This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to see bug 31056 fixed:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31056
Other bugs I'd like to
velopers List
Cc:
Subject:Re: Reconsideration of features for 1.3 (Re: slf4j and log4j)
I would think that Chainsaw (as mentioned by Endre as an example in
the other thread) would need to be withheld until at least 1.3 if not
an alluded-to 2.0 major release. IIRC, chainsaw v2 util
I would think that Chainsaw (as mentioned by Endre as an example in
the other thread) would need to be withheld until at least 1.3 if not
an alluded-to 2.0 major release. IIRC, chainsaw v2 utilizes the new
plugin / receiver framework and as a user I'd be a little hesitant to
switch to a 1.2.9+ kn
On May 3, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
That's actually an appealing argument to me: 1.3 = 1.2 + trace-level,
2.0 =
everything else, i.e what we currently call 1.3. I wonder if this is
the
right time to discuss that.
I am bothered that a 2.0 label might reduce the pressure for release o
Hi,
> goes on and on. Why not call this large new thing 2.0, and just continue
> the nice'n'good log4j package v.1 with an 1.3 containing "the normal
> stuff, just a bit better"?
That's actually an appealing argument to me: 1.3 = 1.2 + trace-level, 2.0 =
everything else, i.e what we currently cal
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
| Endre,
|
| So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other
| features are important that you feel we are not doing?
Me? Pretty much nothing - except maybe the new and improved Chainsaw?
But ask on the users list. There hasn't happene
ter. I'd still
like to hear Endre's (or others) suggestions either in an email, or an
opened/reopened bug.
-Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:05 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Recon
One of the planned activities before the 1.3 beta 1 release is a review
of all open bug reports. I would assume the process would be to fix
all the simple ones, reject all the unrealistic ones and have a series
of vote on the debatable ones.
Instead of having an unstructured discussion on desi
gt; Subject: Re: slf4j and log4j
>
> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> |
> | I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses.
> Sure,
> | the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day
> they
> | boil down to excu
gt; Subject: Re: slf4j and log4j
>
> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> |
> | I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses.
> Sure,
> | the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day
> they
> | boil down to excu
On May 3, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses.
Sure,
| the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day
they
| boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
W
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
| the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
| boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
Why don't you put the trace-level into the 1.2 branc
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Kitching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:41 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: slf4j and log4j
...
> >
> > 2) There is demonstrated consensus from the slf4j organization. I want
> som
Hi Ceki,
At 07:57 PM 5/1/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>
>I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
>the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
>boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
>
By this definition, there is no such thing as
I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
Fortunately, this is open source where we can take our marbles and play
elsewhere.
At 03:16 5/1
At 06:49 5/1/2005, you wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:09 -0500, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals,
etc.
>
> I think just about any Log4j committer is part of the slf4j team, unless I
> am mistaken. I'm guessing that this probably also ext
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:09 -0500, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals, etc.
>
> I think just about any Log4j committer is part of the slf4j team, unless I
> am mistaken. I'm guessing that this probably also extends to
> commons-logging de
At 06:16 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>This is a spinoff of the discussion regarding slf4j and log4j. I reviewed
>Curt's email on the 1.2 branch changes, and I am building on some of his
>comments.
>
>I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals, etc.
I think just about a
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 18:16 -0700, Mark Womack wrote:
> Even though slf4j inherits everything from the former log4j UGLI interfaces,
> it seems to me that part of its reason for existence is to foster some
> common, neutral area where the members of the Logging Services team, the JCL
> team, and
26 matches
Mail list logo
