Sorry to waste your time; false alarm. The child-first cases are fine. Somehow my commons-logging.jar had everything but the kitchen sink in it, including the demonstration code.
Good news is with that problem fixed and a refactored LogFactoryImpl, JCL worked as expected in all cases. Brian --- Brian Stansberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- robert burrell donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 23:59 -0700, Brian > Stansberry > > wrote: > > > --- robert burrell donkin > > > > <snip> > > > > > When I ran these, for every child-first case the > > > sysout output said the caller was defined by the > > child > > > loader. > > > > > > [java] Caller defined by CHILD class > > loader > > > > > > For 18, 20, 26, 28, 30 and 32, the overview says > > > caller should be loaded by the parent. Haven't > > had a > > > chance to try to see why, but this could be the > > cause > > > of some problems. > > > > that's interesting. > > > > i've rerun the tests on my machine and all those > > tests seem to have the > > caller defined correctly. (i don't seem to have > > anything which isn't > > check in.) i'm running Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM > > (build 1.4.2_04-b05, > > mixed mode) on linux at the moment. > > > > anyone else experiencing these problems? > > Please note that the results I reported came when I > ran the tests using the patched version of > LogFactoryImpl I discussed. Don't know if that > would > matter or not. I can try again tonight using the > normal JCL. Or it could be some other screwup on my > part. > > Brian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
