Howdy, >We haven't exhaustively checked this out everywhere. I'd like to see in >a logging.apache style project that we standardize on a config file >format (xml is more flexible, is it not?), and also, can we change >log4j.* and log4perl.* to log.*? > >Thoughts?
Properties and XML files both have their uses. XML is not always more flexible and sometimes properties are more useful in practice. This is why components like commons-configuration exist, to present a unified configuration façade regardless of source (properties, XML, database, etc.). Secondly, definite -1 on using "log" as the property name prefix. The property name prefix, by convention (and not a hard standard/specification), is used to indicate the subsystem for which the property applies. Hence, log4j.something is a property read/used by log4j. log.something can be used by any logging component and may specify a property not supported by/related to log4j. It's misleading to use that prefix for log4j purposes. By the way, this prefix system allows easily combining the properties for many systems (e.g. log4j, castor, openjms, many others) in one master configuration file. This is an example of something that's much easier to achieve with properties files than XML files, making them more flexible in this regard than XML configuration files. Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
