On Mar 29, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Anand Sherkhane wrote:
Hi,
I'm terribly sorry for my incomplete previous mail(my browser has
mapped few keys and it was sent accidentally)
Here it is again.
I was using log4cxx v0.9.7 and during trial runs, it started
crashing(I think the reason was as mentioned in http://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-4).
Our customer got skeptical(obviously) when he read following
statement at http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx :
"At this point, log4cxx-0.9.7 is substantially out of date, has
known serious deficiencies that have been resolved in the CVS, and
should be avoided for new code"
He even suggested to switch to another logging framework.
We convinced them that we can use a newer version of log4cxx and
everything will work fine. I switched to log4cxx v0.10.0 and its
working fine. However, there is no official word on this release.
How do I justify to our customers the use of this log4cxx version.
Is there any tentative date for official new release. Even a
clarification on this thread from log4cxx team that log4cxx v0.10.0
is stable enough for use in production systems will be sufficient
for me for time being(until Apache makes it official).
Regards,
Anand.
P.S. I'm sorry if this mail does not belong to this mailing list.
Please suggest me an appropriate place to post this query.
Almost all the the essential tasks to finally prepare a release
candidate have been knocked out. All that is necessary is some
dedicated time to work on packaging, unfortunately that has been in
short supply.
Once a release candidate is built, then there is a voting process
with the Logging Services PMC. A recent log4j release candidate
stalled in the PMC voting phase due to too few votes. A log4cxx
release is likely to be harder to get through the PMC for a variety
of reasons. The 0.9.7 "release" predates log4cxx moving into the ASF
and was not held to the same degree of scrutiny.
The log4cxx "team" is unlikely ever to make a statement of the
appropriateness of the software for any particular use since that
might be implied as a warrantee of some sort. If you search the
log4cxx-dev and log4cxx-user mailing list for "production", you will
find statements of people who are using log4cxx in high volume
systems. However, the implementation quality may vary from appender
to appender, so you should not reconfigure log4cxx to use an appender
that you have not tested during production.
