Re: JDBC Appender

2003-04-02 Thread RBair
and dirty JDBC appender for work. We also had a buffer that filled with logging requests and when it reached a certain threshold, it would do a batch update to the database from a separate thread. We didn't have to worry about it being used in an EJB container, so it was really a good

Re: JDBC Appender

2003-04-01 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 10:14 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: Hello all, I finally have more time as a major deadline has passed at work. I was thinking about writing an improved JDBC appender. My intention is to create a new appender from scratch. As discussed previously, I figured I would have an abstract base

Re: JDBC Appender

2003-04-01 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 06:59 AM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: Ceki Gülcü wrote: At 10:14 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: Hello all, I finally have more time as a major deadline has passed at work. I was thinking about writing an improved JDBC appender. My intention is to create a new appender from scratch

Re: JDBC Appender

2003-04-01 Thread RBair
Wow! The list was boring there for a few days -- that's over :-) How exciting. Anyway, I wrote a quick and dirty JDBC appender for work. We also had a buffer that filled with logging requests and when it reached a certain threshold, it would do a batch update to the database from a separate

RE: sub-compoent configuration (was RE: JDBC Appender)

2003-04-01 Thread Mark Womack
In log4j version 1.3, you can also include sub-components in config files written in XML. Seeing a sub-element within an appender element, DOMConfigurator will automatically instantiate and configure the sub-element. I'll write complete example within the next few days. If I forget,

RE: sub-compoent configuration (was RE: JDBC Appender)

2003-04-01 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 09:09 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, you wrote: In log4j version 1.3, you can also include sub-components in config files written in XML. Seeing a sub-element within an appender element, DOMConfigurator will automatically instantiate and configure the sub-element. I'll write complete example within

Re: JDBC Appender

2003-04-01 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 07:00 PM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: Thanks for the excellent example Ceki, it is exactly what I was looking for. Glad to hear it. Is it possible to do the same with *.properties files? I tried the natural thing, but it didn't work: No, it is not possible and there are no plans to support

JDBC Appender

2003-03-31 Thread Raymond DeCampo
Hello all, I finally have more time as a major deadline has passed at work. I was thinking about writing an improved JDBC appender. My intention is to create a new appender from scratch. As discussed previously, I figured I would have an abstract base class with an abstract getConnection

Re: JDBC Appender

2003-03-31 Thread Raymond DeCampo
Paul Smith wrote: I figured I would have an abstract base class with an abstract getConnection() class and two concrete derivatives; one for getting the connection from a JNDI context and one for getting the connection from the DriverManager. This isn't too bad an idea, but I'm personally

RE: JDBC Appender

2003-03-31 Thread Mark Womack
Raymond, I finally have more time as a major deadline has passed at work. I was thinking about writing an improved JDBC appender. My intention is to create a new appender from scratch. As discussed previously, I figured I would have an abstract base class with an abstract

SV: JDBC Appender

2003-03-31 Thread hermod . opstvedt
Hi Maybe you should take a look at the DBCP stuff that is used in Tomcat, with regards to instatiation etc. -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Raymond DeCampo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. april 2003 05:14 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: JDBC Appender Hello all, I finally have more time

SV: JDBC Appender

2003-03-31 Thread hermod . opstvedt
: 'Log4J Developers List' Emne: RE: JDBC Appender Joshua Blocks Effective Java advocates Composition over inheritence, and I've very much warmed to that approach now, hence my preference. I'd agree that the use of inner classes is maybe not the best. I'd actually meant that they are private static