You are spot on about the documentation but I just added 3 fixes to it locally and got no reply from the mailing list about adding them up stream. There are bugs in the current source tree and you get ignored when you propose fixes. Possibly I am not going about that correctly but I didn't even get a process suggestion in response so I am going to be looking to switch logging libraries in my next release.
I am already using boost so the idea of a boost logging library appeals to me, so props to Bernd. On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Rhys Ulerich wrote: >> I just tried to figure out, if log4cxx is still alive. > > You could characterize log4cxx as undead. > > The mailing list tends to be low volume because (a) the documentation > is good, (b) the code is good and (c) most "How can I do XYZ?" queries > have answers identical to their Java log4j equivalent. > > I wouldn't shy away from log4cxx for the reasons you mention. I would > shy away if you're uncomfortable periodically digging in the issue > tracker to resolve build-related questions. Or if something in the > issue tracker is a must-have feature because, as you've noted, there's > not a lot of new feature development. > > - Rhys > Joseph Southwell jos...@southwell.org =================== The past is history. The future's a mystery. The present's a gift.