On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:04 AM, Eric Pugh wrote:
Jar upgrades are never easy. I would venture a guess that in Log4j world,
1.3 is the equvalent of 2.0 in other projects. Especially if you count how
many 1.2.x releases there where..
So call it 2.0!
The worst thing that can happen is that the o.a.l.RFA class is grabbed out
of log4j just to provide the compatiblity. I hate that when I have
hibernate.jar and commons-lang.jar that eclipse prompts me for which path to
import from for my NestableException!
Agreed.
I do think that log4j-user is going to recieve a lot of emails about why
config files quit working. I would grab a 1.3 and slap it in place of 1.2.8
without thinking about it if I didn't know how big the 1.3 upgrade was for
log4j.
exactly
Geir, have you thought about using commons-logging as a wrapper/hider of the
other logging solutions? That might allow you to not include log4j and
logkit jars, and give you support of theoretically many logging solutions?
LOL. Sorry, I'm not a big fan of commons-logging... I prefer the IOC pattern. This is an adapter included w/ Velocity, not it's core functionality.
geir
ERic
-----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:50 PM To: Ceki G�lc� Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: failure notice
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Ceki G�lc� wrote:
At 02:58 PM 11/30/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 8:32 AM, Ceki G�lc� wrote:
At 03:39 AM 11/30/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:some lists choose to moderate...
Hello Geir,
We currently don't but may switch back to moderated list. Sorry about the hassle.
anyway, the interesting thing is the problem I have fixing Velocity
so Gump is happy ...
Niclas Hedhman informed us of this problem. There was a conscious choice to remove the old RollingAppender and replace with something better.
That's all well and good, but why not deprecate for a version?
Because the old RollingAppender has bugs. Consequently, we don't want to make it available to Mrs. Piggy in the next version of log4j 1.3.
Mrs. Piggy?
Can you make o.a.l.RFA be an adapter for o.a.l.rolling.RFA?
But what gump has done here is given us early warning that if one of us doesn't do something, Velocity users [and every other log4j user using RollingFileAppender] are *screwed* if they try to upgrade a minor version number of log4j, to 1.3.
What I want is that existing velocity users can upgrade to log4j 1.3 w/o hassle.
Log4j 1.3 is currently in alpha. Ignore 1.3 until it goes RC. When it goes RC, switch to 1.3. It should be trivial to do so.
It is, but requires a code change. For people with code in production,
asking to do a code change to upgrade log4j is asking a lot.
But forgetting Gump, in general, what do you want me and other users to do? have to modify our code to update to 1.3?
Wait, don't do anything for the time being. Velocity ships with a copy
log4j doesn't it?
no, we just tell people that we have a logger that writes to it.
Continue to ship log4j 1.2.9 until you decide to switch to 1.3, for example when it goes RC. Switching velocity to use log4j 1.3 instead of 1.2 should be pretty easy to do.
How does that sound?
We don't ship log4j. We support having velocity log to a whole bunch of things, log4j being one of them (and probably the most popular...)
geir
geir
-- Ceki G�lc�
The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/eclm Professional log4j support: http://qos.ch/log4jSupport
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
