-1 (temp) Can you hold off for a few days? I'm not happy with the way James logs (using logkit). At the moment I don't know if that is because (1) I don't understand logkit (2) james isn't implementing logkit properly or (3) there are issues with logkit.
This isn't helped by a commit of cornerstone in James with a broken scheduler (so james cvs isn't running at the moment). Once that is fixed (and package names changed) I'll try to explain what I don't like about its logging - but I think its the way it currently handles categories. Charles Peter Donald wrote: > > If no one -1s in next day or two I will do the following. After that I > think the only two things code-wise before release to look at is > excalibur.thread and possibly excalibur.pool (Berin how does it look?). Any > other knits code-wise??? > > At 02:25 26/4/01 +1000, you wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Before we go beta we should decide on whether or not we update Category > >setting. Currently when you set the priority of a category it sets just > >that category. However when you set the logtargets it sets it for the > >hierarchy (minus those who are explicitly set). For example consider the > >following categories > > > >a.1.p > >a.1.q > >a.1.r > >a.2.p > >a.3.p > > > >If I was to set the log target of to a file "/var/log/a" then all of the > >targets would write to this one target. If you also set the log target of > >a.1 to "/var/log/1" then all of a.1.* would write to this file while the > >others would write to the original file. So the algorithm is basically "If > >log target is not set get parent to write it out". > > > >Categories in logkit don't work this way (though in most other systems such > >as jSyslog/Log4j/protomatter/Logging JSR they do). The original reason was > >because I didn't have the time to do it right. I could have hacked it > >together (much the same way the other toolkits do) but that would kill > >performance (they effectively lookup parents priority on each access). By > >the time I had enough time to fix it to many peeps were using the kit and > >relying on functionality. As I convinced everyone to move to Log4j now > >would be the time to do it if ever (ie before beta). > > > >Simultaneously I would also merge the "Category" object into Logger objects > >and possibly add pluggable ErrorHandlers (if time was sufficient). The > >effects this would have on the "client" use is the following > > > >getLogger().getCategory().getPriority() -=> getLogger().getPriority() > >getLogger().getCategory().getName() -=> getLogger().getName() > >getLogger().getCategory().setPriority( priority ) -=> > >LogKit.setPriority( getLogger().getName(), priority ) > > > >and the SPI would also change both semantics (as given above) and interface > >(merge getCategory/getLogger). > > > >Thoughts? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Pete > > > >*-----------------------------------------------------* > >| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > >| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > >| everyone gets busy on the proof." | > >| - John Kenneth Galbraith | > >*-----------------------------------------------------* > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
