That's good to know.  Since I'm the sole author of the guibuilder code,
I could easily alter the license any which way.  I guess I'll have to
look into the specifics of the differences between the Apache and LGPL
Licenses.  Is there a link to those discussions so I can read up on the
differences?  It may be that I want my guibuilder to use the Apache
license too.

Richard

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 15:41, Oliver Burn wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> Be aware that there has been a lot of discussion within Jakarta/Apache
> about the use of LGPL code on Jakarta projects. It seems to be
> highly likely that it will not be allowed.
> 
> Is this what the other committers believe the case is?
> 
> I would hate to see you spend time going down a path of using LGPL
> code, when the Log4J project may not be able to use it.
> 
> Regards,
> Oliver
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Bair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2003 09:08
> > To: Log4J Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Configuration GUI
> >
> >
> > The cool thing about this idea is that we'd be able to set properties
> > for any given appender without the need of a ton of custom code.  I'm in
> > the process of building a guibuilder right now as well, so reflection
> > and property sheets are almost second nature ;-)
> >
> > The one drawback I see with going this route is that creating a really
> > generic tool sometimes means that the user interface isn't as intuitive.
> >
> > For instance, I think it would make for a cleaner UI to provide the user
> > of a FileAppender a checkbox for bufferedIO and Append, and a spinner
> > control for the BufferSize (or maybe an editable combo box) rather than
> > providing a table that would list each of the properties and would use a
> > different editor depending on the datatype (like the property sheet in
> > VB or the guibuilder I've been writing).
> >
> > But I don't know.  Maybe a good property sheet using reflection would
> > rock over all.  I'd be able to reuse a lot of my other code (its
> > LGPL'd), and it really WOULD provide for all different appenders.
> >
> > Incidently, I was using java 1.4 for its java.beans package and
> > functionality.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 14:38, Mark Womack wrote:
> > > I'd like to see a tool that performs reflection on the various
> > classes to
> > > let you know what parameters can be set.  So, if I chose to add a
> > > FileAppender, the list of configuration options would be
> > gathered by looking
> > > at the property setter methods defined in that class.
> > >
> > > I remember someone mentioning a configuration tool for log4j a
> > very long
> > > time ago, but I don't remember the details.  I think that a
> > tool like this
> > > would be very cool.  You should consider placing it into the
> > log4j-sandbox.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard Bair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:59 AM
> > > > To: Log4J Developers List
> > > > Subject: Configuration GUI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm gearing up to write a preliminary gui for editing log4j
> > > > configuration files.  I don't know of any that currently
> > exist(?).  My
> > > > employer has need of a simple configuration gui (it won't be very
> > > > flexible in this first version).  After writing that, I'll be more
> > > > familiar with the issues involved and will start tackling a
> > > > more generic
> > > > setup on my own time.
> > > >
> > > > Initially I was planning on using DOM for parsing and modifying XML
> > > > config files.  It seemed a natural fit.  However, in the spirit of
> > > > logging.apache.org, and because one of our requirements at
> > > > work is that
> > > > our app work for all of the log4j variants (perl and c++ in
> > > > particular),
> > > > it looks like we'll have to use standard properties files.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if anybody out there:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Has tried to build one of these before and has any ideas
> > > > 2) Knows of code that would be a good fit for parsing and saving the
> > > > properties files (log4j obviously has code for parsing the properties
> > > > file, but I don't know if it will be applicable or need reworking)
> > > > 3) Thinks this is a bad idea ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Ideally, we'd be able to provide plugin functionality so that
> > > > no matter
> > > > what configuration file style users prefer, we'd be able to
> > read/write
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> 



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

Reply via email to