> The only problem is that Tapestry originally had a special, built-in web > page for creating Log4J loggers (nee categories), and changing Log4J > levels > (nee priorities). This used addtiional methods in Log4J Logger for > setting > the level, and elsewhere for creating new loggers. The commons-logging > folks are pretty adamant that extrending the framework for these > operations isn't appropriate. (I disagree, but it's not a fight I'm > prepared to wage, or expect to win).
I agree with you - partially. We should have a config mechansim - but it shouldn't be part of the core logging interfaces. I would vote +1 on an optional interface that allows some basic configuration ( like setting the level for a category ), but I don't think it would get a majority. My prefference is JMX for configuration - log4j already has some support for that, and it would be possible to create mbeans to manage jdk1.4 logging as well ( or other logging impl. ). It is on my todo list ( next to using JDNI java:env/ to select the logger implementation ) - but I don't have the time right now. Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
