Hi all,
We are getting closer and closer to releasing log4j 1.3 (and yes, we
will get there). In the mean time if anyone is slightly curious about
the new Chainsaw v2 that will be a part of this release, I have written
an Ant-based 'installer' that takes a lot of the effort required to get
everyt
er the
next few weeks..
Steve.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Chainsaw]: Ant-based installer
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are getting closer and clos
> One initial comment tho, is there a way to list the full ignore list in a
> table or something.
> I'm playing with our app and ignoring some loggers, now want to see which
> ones I'm ignoring.
> I know that they are italliced in the tree, but our tree is large, and I've
> only ignored a few..
>
>
> > One initial comment tho, is there a way to list the full
> ignore list in a
> > table or something.
> > I'm playing with our app and ignoring some loggers, now
> want to see which
> > ones I'm ignoring.
> > I know that they are italliced in the tree, but our tree is
> large, and I've
> >
> One other options might be to just hide/show items that are ignored in the
> tree, then with an expand all option, you don't even need a new ui.
>
Right now you can ignore a specific logger, but that doesn't imply that
it should ignore all it's children as well, so if we hide a logger node
in t
> > One other options might be to just hide/show items that are
> ignored in the
> > tree, then with an expand all option, you don't even need a new ui.
> >
>
> Right now you can ignore a specific logger, but that doesn't
> imply that
> it should ignore all it's children as well, so if we hide
> I noticed that behaviour, is there a reason. It's a bit annoying to have to
> turn off each sub-logger. When configuring loggers, if you set a logger to
> FATAL, then all sub-loggers are converted to FATAL, right?? Shouldn't
> chainsaw replicate this idea.
>
> Most times nodes in a logger tr
,
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Steve Mactaggart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12/10/2003 9:52 PM
To: 'Log4J Users List'
Cc:
Subject:RE: [Chainsaw]: Ant-based installer
> > One other options might be to just hide/show items that are
> ignor
How about allowing both? Ignoring just the selected node in the tree
(as is the case currently) **or** ignoring the selected node and its
children.
The solution of expressions suggested by Scott offers a far more
precise control but probably is harder to put in place for the user.
Just my 2 shallow
age-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:13 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: [Chainsaw]: Ant-based installer
How about allowing both? Ignoring just the selected node in the tree (as is the case
currently) **or** ignoring the selected node and its c
10 matches
Mail list logo
