Hello Jim,
If you feel that your contribution is being ignored then nag. If that doesn't work,
then nag some more. I would dare say that participants in the log4j project are mere
mortals. That applies to other open source projects in Jakarta, XML, PHP and httpd. We
make mistakes, overlook excellent contributions, write buggy code, under document etc
etc.
However, it is never personal. You are kindly requested to resubmit your SMTPAppender
patch. I apologize for the inconvenience. Regards, Ceki
At 12:58 19.05.2001 -0400, you wrote:
>My #1 request is that the code be written in a way that can be extended. A
>great deal of the current code is written with critical sections using
>package members/methods without any accessor methods to get to them. That
>means that if you want to extend a class, you simply can't do so -- you must
>completely rewrite it.
>
>As a case in point, I wanted to SMTPAppender to provide "patterns" in the
>subject so that when a email was sent it would automatically put information
>about what caused the problem in the subject. (There are a few other
>things, too, like having multiple SMTP hosts in case one's down.) However,
>I couldn't extend SMTPAppender because all of the data is inaccessible to
>subclasses, so I cut & pasted the code into my class and extended from
>AppenderSkeleton instead. Ugh! To be a "good guy" I even went into the
>original code for SMTPAppender, changed the members to be private with
>protected accessor methods, and submitted the diff to this list (since I'm
>not a committer) so other people wouldn't run into the same problem, but it
>was never applied to the code. (No one ever said why.) Whatever. I've run
>across this same problem in other places too, but the SMTPAppender really
>disturbed me since it's an appender and therefore fairly likely for people
>to want to extend with new functionality.
>
>The point being, while log4j is currently great for "plugging in" new
>features, it's not very easy (without resorting to cut&paste) to extend
>current code.
>
>-Jim Moore
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mathias Bogaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:01 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Log4J beyond 1.1, thunderdome!
>
>
>Hello,
>
>To be able to plan the next releases of log4j, we would like to know what
>new features/enhancements/changes/wishes you have in mind for log4j beyond
>1.1.
>Please voice them on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
>
>Also:
>- is the current documentation sufficient?
>- a servlet to view the log (and sort, list, print), would this be usefull?
>- a servlet to modify the log4j.properties, or is this overkill?
>- should log4j support i18n? (dunno if it already correctly does)
>
>TIA
>Mathias
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
