At 08:32 03.09.2001 +0900, Christopher Taylor wrote:
>If it's still got backwards compatibility... cool.
From what I can tell so far, yes, it is backwards compatible. It may
well be that I missed a detail. Our test scripts (using the now deprecated
category class) run fine without any modifications.
The configuration language still needs to be enhanced. We need to add
something like:
log4j.logger.foo.bar=DEBUG, A1, ...
on top of the existing
log4j.category.foo.bar=DEBUG, A1, ...
>No reservations here.
Cool. Thanks. Ceki
>-Chris
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 7:08 AM
>Subject: [POLL] Renamed classes
>
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>As my recent CVS commits indicate, I just checked in code that uses Logger
>as the central class in the package instead of Category. I also changed
>Priority to Level.
>
>As far as I can tell, the code cleanly compiles. Moreover, the changes
>are backward compatible! (In the new code Category extends Logger and
>Priority extends Level.)
>
>Does anyone have reservations about these changes? Regards, Ceki
>
>
>--
>Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
