On 1 Dec 2013, at 17:25, Ivan Habunek wrote:
Cool. Be sure to work on the docs branch, docs folder. The Sphinx
docs. Not the old xdoc web site. Keep in mind those docs are for
2.3.1, not 3.0.
I will merge it into v3 branch after releasing 2.3.1. to prevent
duplicate effort.
Is that ok for you?
Cool. Be sure to work on the docs branch, docs folder. The Sphinx
docs. Not the old xdoc web site. Keep in mind those docs are for
2.3.1, not 3.0.
I will merge it into v3 branch after releasing 2.3.1. to prevent
duplicate effort.
Is that ok for you?
Regards,
Ivan
On 1 December 2013 17:20, Chris
On 1 Dec 2013, at 11:37, Ivan Habunek wrote:
On 1 December 2013 11:23, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
In Log4j2 we have not kept it because we lack of such a scenario. In
addition people
seem to be confused over NDC. Curious about your ideas here (also
useful for
docs, in case we keep it).
Con
On 1 December 2013 11:23, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> In Log4j2 we have not kept it because we lack of such a scenario. In
> addition people
> seem to be confused over NDC. Curious about your ideas here (also useful for
> docs, in case we keep it).
Consider a scenario where you have a layered ap
On 1 Dec 2013, at 9:42, Ivan Habunek wrote:
On 30 November 2013 21:23, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
We actually have MDC and NDC.
Thanks. I know remember that I put some work in these classes before
ages.
In this case I am caring about the docs.
However I never found much sense in the NDC.
Hi Dmitriy,
I have written a basic git workflow [1]. It may need some tweaking
since we moved to git recently.
Unfortunately, it's not easy for us to accept github pull requests
since we're not able to close them (not admins on the project). :( We
should investigate what our options are there.
A
On 30 November 2013 21:23, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> We actually have MDC and NDC.
>>
> Thanks. I know remember that I put some work in these classes before ages.
>
> In this case I am caring about the docs.
>
> However I never found much sense in the NDC. Any objections to remove NDC?
I neve
Hi everyone!
Sorry for slow response :)
I planned on working on 3.0 release. But can support 2.x version too.
Can i read about log4php development and release flow somewhere?
2013/11/30 Ivan Habunek
> We actually have MDC and NDC.
>
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/m
On 30 Nov 2013, at 20:50, Ivan Habunek wrote:
We actually have MDC and NDC.
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/main/php/LoggerMDC.php
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/main/php/LoggerNDC.php
I think it's not documented well (or maybe at all). They'
We actually have MDC and NDC.
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/main/php/LoggerMDC.php
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4php/blob/master/src/main/php/LoggerNDC.php
I think it's not documented well (or maybe at all). They're supported
in the Pattern Layout:
http://loggin
Hi folks,
I would like to step in again too. One of my main interests is to
implement a mapped diagnostic context.
In log4j1 it is known as MDC, in log4j2 it is the thread context:
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/thread-context.html
I really see benefits in having such a feature in
OK. Step no. 1 is something only I can do. And for that I need to push
the new web site + sphinx-doc generated documentation. And do a
release of the current state at the same time. I have ~80% of work
done (see "docs" branch), and i have a working prototype of the new
web site which I have not yet
Change is inevitable. :)
I agree a quick 3.0 might not add very much value, but on the other hand
discussing the internal naming and renaming of classes also does not add
external value.
One could change to PSR-0, but would this actually change the public interface?
Or is this something consid
Hi Sven, nice to have you aboard.
I don't thing it's a good idea to release a final 3.0 version which
will change a lot in future versions. And if we just tack on
namespaces to current class naming scheme, that would need to be
changed in the future. I think it's worth putting in a little more
eff
Sorry to step right into your discussion.
I'd propose this:
1. Merge the current three branches somehow into a "current" version and
release the accumulated fixes as 2.3.1 or 2.4.0 depending on the changes.
2. Then decide to move on to 3.0 and apply PSR-2 coding style. There is a style
fixer a
15 matches
Mail list logo
