Author: ceki
Date: Sun Jun 8 16:43:20 2008
New Revision: 1064
Modified:
slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/compatibility.html
slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/faq.html
slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/license.html
slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/news.html
Log:
- doc improvements, spelling, links etc
Modified: slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/compatibility.html
==============================================================================
--- slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/compatibility.html (original)
+++ slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/compatibility.html Sun Jun 8
16:43:20 2008
@@ -36,6 +36,9 @@
contact the slf4j developers list.</p>
+ <h2><a href="#1_5_2" name="1_5_2">Version 1.5.2 compared to 1.5.1</a></h2>
+
+ <p>No breaking changes to report.</p>
<h2><a href="#1_5_1" name="1_5_1">Version 1.5.1 compared to 1.5.0</a></h2>
Modified: slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/faq.html
==============================================================================
--- slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/faq.html (original)
+++ slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/faq.html Sun Jun 8 16:43:20 2008
@@ -476,9 +476,9 @@
</p>
<p>Just as importantly, the new set of method signatures offer
- a clearer differentiation between the overladed methods
+ a clearer differentiation between the overloaded methods
whereas previously the choice of the invoked method due to
- Java overloding rules were not always easy to follow.</p>
+ Java overloading rules were not always easy to follow.</p>
<p>It was also easy to make mistakes. For example, previously
it was legal to write:</p>
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@
<p class="source">Object entry = new SomeObject();
logger.debug("The entry is {}.", entry);</p>
- <p>After evaluting whether to log or not, and only if the
+ <p>After evaluating whether to log or not, and only if the
decision is affirmative, will the logger implementation format
the message and replace the '{}' pair with the string value of
<code>entry</code>. In other words, this form does not incur
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@
logger.debug("The new entry is {}.", entry);</p>
- <p>A two argument variant is also availalble. For example, you
+ <p>A two argument variant is also available. For example, you
can write:</p>
@@ -830,8 +830,8 @@
<dd>
- <p>Adding supporting for the SLF4J is suprisingly
- easy. Essentialy, you coping an existing binding and tailoring
+ <p>Adding supporting for the SLF4J is surprisingly
+ easy. Essentially, you coping an existing binding and tailoring
it a little (as explained below) does the trick.
</p>
@@ -855,7 +855,7 @@
<code>MyLoggerAdapter</code>, and a factory, namely
<code>MyLoggerFactory</code>, the last remaining step is to
modify the <code>StaticLoggerBinder</code> class so that it
- reurns an new instance of <code>MyLoggerFactory</code>. You
+ returns an new instance of <code>MyLoggerFactory</code>. You
will also need to modify the
<code>loggerFactoryClassStr</code> variable.
</p>
@@ -886,9 +886,9 @@
</dt>
<dd>
- <p>Markers consitute a revolutionary concept which is
+ <p>Markers constitute a revolutionary concept which is
supported by logback but not other existing logging
- systems. Consequently, SLF4J confromant logging systems are
+ systems. Consequently, SLF4J conforming logging systems are
allowed to ignore marker data passed by the user.
</p>
@@ -896,7 +896,7 @@
must still be allowed to specify marker data. Otherwise, users
would not be able to switch between logging systems that
support markers and those that do not. In order to provide
- minimal support for markers, SLF4J conformant systems need to
+ minimal support for markers, SLF4J conforming systems need to
to include certain Marker related classes, namely,
<code>org.slf4j.Marker</code>,
<code>org.slf4j.IMarkerFactory</code>,
@@ -906,7 +906,7 @@
<code>org.slf4j.impl.MarkerIgnoringBase</code>,
<code>org.slf4j.impl.StaticMarkerBinder</code> and
<code>org.slf4j.spi.MarkerFactoryBinder</code>. Al of these
- classes are availalbe in the SLF4J subversion repository.
+ classes are available in the SLF4J subversion repository.
</p>
<p>The <code>MarkerIgnoringBase</code> class can serve as a
@@ -953,9 +953,9 @@
<td>
<ol>
<li>common and well-established idiom</li>
- <li>less CPU overhead: loggers are retreived and
+ <li>less CPU overhead: loggers are retrieved and
assigned only once, at hosting class
- initialisation</li>
+ initialization</li>
<li>less memory overhead: logger declaration will
consume one reference per class</li>
<li>serialization of the hosting class does not require
@@ -968,7 +968,7 @@
<ol>
<li>For libraries shared between applications, not
possible to take advantage of repository selectors. It
- should be noteed that if the SLF4J binding and the
+ should be noted that if the SLF4J binding and the
underlying API ships with each application (not shared
between applications), then each application will still
have its own logging environment.
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@
<li>Possible to take advantage of repository selectors
even for libraries shared between applications. However,
repository selectors only work if the underlying logging
- sytem is logback-classic. Repository selectors do not
+ system is logback-classic. Repository selectors do not
work for the SLF4J+log4j combination.
</li>
<li>IOC-friendly</li>
@@ -1002,7 +1002,7 @@
<li>Less common idiom than declaring loggers as static
variables</li>
- <li>higher CPU overhead: loggers are retreived and
+ <li>higher CPU overhead: loggers are retrieved and
assigned for each instance of the hosting class</li>
<li>higher memory overhead: logger declaration will
@@ -1081,10 +1081,10 @@
<p><b>Summary</b></p>
- <p>In summary, declaring logger members as static variables,
+ <p>In summary, declaring logger members as static variables
requires less work, less CPU and memory overhead and causes no
problems with serialization. On the other hand, declaring logger
- members as instance variables, requires more work, more CPU and
+ members as instance variables requires more work, more CPU and
memory overhead and is likely to cause problems with
serialization. However, instance variables make it possible to
create a distinct logger environment for each application, even
@@ -1093,9 +1093,11 @@
IOC-friendly whereas static variables are not.
</p>
- <p>
+ <p>See also <a
+ href="http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Logging/StaticLog";>related
+ discussion</a> in the commons-logging wiki.
</p>
-http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Logging/StaticLog
+
</dd>
</dl>
@@ -1120,8 +1122,8 @@
}</p>
<p>Unfortunately, give that the name of the hosting class is
- part of the logger declarion, the above logger declaration
- idom is not is <em>not</em> resitant to cut-and-pasting
+ part of the logger declaration, the above logger declaration
+ idiom is not is <em>not</em> resistant to cut-and-pasting
between classes.
</p>
</dd>
Modified: slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/license.html
==============================================================================
--- slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/license.html (original)
+++ slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/license.html Sun Jun 8 16:43:20 2008
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
</p>
<div class="source">
- Copyright (c) 2004-2007 QOS.ch
+ Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch
All rights reserved.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
Modified: slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/news.html
==============================================================================
--- slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/news.html (original)
+++ slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages/news.html Sun Jun 8 16:43:20 2008
@@ -30,7 +30,14 @@
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1"/>
+ <h3>June 8th, 2008 - Release of SLF4J 1.5.2</h3>
+ <p>Improvements to SLF4J documentation as well as fix of <a
+ href="http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88";>packaging
+ problems</a> related to <em>jul-to-slf4j.jar</em> and
+ <em>jcl104-over-slf4j.jar</em>.
+ </p>
+
<h3>June 5th, 2008 - Release of SLF4J 1.5.1</h3>
<p>See also the <a href="compatibility.html#1_5_1">compatibility
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
