ceki        2002/06/28 02:09:11

  Added:       docs     SUMMARY
  Log:
  A log4j-dev@ summary for the Jakarta Newsletter.
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.1                  jakarta-log4j/docs/SUMMARY
  
  Index: SUMMARY
  ===================================================================
  
  This file contains the summary of what has been discussed on the
  log4j-dev@ mailing lists. Its mothly contents are sent to the editor
  of the Jakarta Newsletter. For the first issue of the Jakarta
  Newsletter see:
  
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=102328546509220&w=2
  
  +==========+
  |June 20002|
  +==========+
  
  The month started with a question by John Armstrong [1] on whether
  log4j offered any guaratees on binary compatibility between various
  versions.  To which Ceki replied by stating [2] the current policy of
  not removing deprecated methods until at least two release cycles are
  complete. This reply did not seem to satisfy John Armstrong and in a
  long discussion ensued. A historical perspective [3] seemed to satisfy
  most people, at least the discussion petered off.
  
  [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102335790906496&w=2
  [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102336327109965&w=2
  [3] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102387540521717&w=2
  
  Mike Agnus started [4] a discussion about timezone and locale related
  issues in log4j date formats. James Cakalic and Mike discussed the
  importance of the decimal character separator.  Possible performance
  improvements were also suggested. Mark Womack submitted code for
  timezone support for date elements of pattern layout. Unfortunately,
  the the code was anonymous and we could not take into consideration.
  The idea seemed to catch on though.
  
  [4] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102209832808942&w=2
  [5] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102420694310844&w=2
  
  Ceki asked for clarifications [6] on java buffered IO because his
  experience did not match the myth. Georg Lundesgaard mentioned [7] the
  character conversion buffering aspect as explained in the
  OutputStreamWriter javadocs.
  
  [6] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102326443025158&w=2
  [7] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102327620700816&w=2
  
  Costin Manolache related his experiece [8] with confuring log4j with
  JMX. He mentioned the web-application logging insulation problem. In
  response, Ceki wrote a specification [9] for solving the logging
  separation problem. This was followed by a promising discussion [10]
  on Tomcat-dev.
  
  [8]  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102412323003656&w=2
  [9]  http://qos.ch/containers/sc.html
  [10] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102510381000001&r=1&w=2
  
  Mark made a proposal [1]] for a new log4j component called "Receiver."
  
  [11] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=102523926310678&w=2
  
  
  

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to