On Mar 1, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Hein Meling wrote:
Hello Ceki,
What is the status of the bug (32752) related to this (I see no
additional comment or change to the bug report)?
I hope that the signature will be reverted to that of log4j 1.2, so
that
usability can be preserved.
Hein
I have a pending t
Hello Ceki,
What is the status of the bug (32752) related to this (I see no
additional comment or change to the bug report)?
I hope that the signature will be reverted to that of log4j 1.2, so that
usability can be preserved.
Hein
fre, 25,.02.2005 kl. 10.23 +, skrev Vinay Sajip:
> Hello Ce
Hello Ceki,
> First, in log4j 1.3 you can attach properties to a logger repository
> so that all components attached to that repository, such as loggers,
> appenders, layouts, inherit those properties. However, the values of
> these properties are of type String. When log4j 1.3 inter
Hello Ceki,
Thanks for being so forthcoming about this. I realize that there may be
a certain overhead with this, but hopefully the benefits of this later
rendering will outweigh its overhead penelty. If the overhead is
significant, you may consider if you wish to support both the dynamic
and st
Hello Hein,
Thank you for your informative and precise message. The signature
change in of the MDC.put and MDC.get messages in 1.3 has two, albeit
partial, justifications.
First, in log4j 1.3 you can attach properties to a logger repository
so that all components attached to that reposito
Ciao,
I've noticed that MDC.put(String, Object) has been deprecated and is
being replaced by MDC.put(String, String) instead. At first, I didn't
think of this as a problem other than calling the Object.toString()
method instead.
But, later I discovered that this is flawed, because the Object mig
