On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik <s...@x3m.com> wrote: > > >> enable this behavior. Would you be interested in testing that out more > >> seriously, and we make it 'standard' ?? > > > > Ah, right. The bufferig implementation seems like a thing that I want :-) > I > > can enable the code locally here and try it out in my environment. Maybe > > this should be a framework property setting? > > I think so. > > >> Also, it is possible to set the logging level in Pax Logging API via > >> system (framework?) property. > > > > Yes, have used this property, but it does not solve it since the pax > logging > > startup messages are logged to system out since it's normally started > before > > the service. > > I thought there was a separate property for the API-only mode. If not, > feel free to add one. > Ok. Will investigate this. > > > Ok. But it seems like a good practice to have all java namespaces unique > so > > that it's no conflict inside "mock" test environments etc. Do not need to > > rename the package, just the Activator. Ex: > > org.ops4j.pax.logging.internal.ApiActivator and > > org.ops4j.pax.logging.internal.ServiceActivator. Would be happy to do the > > work if it's good for you guys. > > Ok, didn't think of that. Go ahead, there should be no consequences > for anyone else. > > Will do that. It's two ways to go here. 1) Rename pax-loggging-service package org.ops4j.pax.logging.internal to org.ops4j.pax.logging.service.internal. 2) or rename just the activators. What do you think is the best? > > Btw, if you go ahead with these, please remember to add yourself to > the <developer> section in the pom (if not already).... > > > Will do.
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
