[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15953164#comment-15953164
]
Robert Stupp commented on CASSANDRA-13396:
------------------------------------------
bq. add a page here describing if and how logging can be customized and with a
list of all relevant config files
bq. it also make sense to allow people to use another logging library
Don't get me wrong, but documenting something that is not supported and has
never seen CI does not sound good. It would give people just skimming that page
the impression that other logging backends _are_ actually supported. Before we
document that, we should have full CI for those backends in place - i.e. all
utests and dtests for each backend - or _at least_ document something like "the
combination of C* version X.Y and \[logger backend version Z\] was CI-tested on
X/Y/Z using this configuration". If we allow people to use other logging
backends, there must be a way to tell them "version X of Y should be good,
because it has been CI tested".
Anyway, supporting another logging backend still sounds like a new feature to
me.
> Cassandra 3.10: ClassCastException in ThreadAwareSecurityManager
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-13396
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13396
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Edward Capriolo
> Priority: Minor
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/user@cassandra.apache.org/msg51603.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
