Richard, I don't entirely agree with your assessment. If you have a tool that is working with current log4j, even if it only outputs property files, then please submit it for the sandbox. It may drive some of the thinking and convergence of the various logging packages.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Bair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:31 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: Configuration GUI & logging.apache.org > > > Nuts. > > From the feedback this morning it sounds like this will be an > architectural issue for the different log4x groups to sort out > together. Which brings up the next question, ETA on when > logging.apache.org will be coming around? Really, the config file thing > is really a moot point until we have a framework in place for the > different projects to coordinate efforts. > > Thanks, > Richard > On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:48, Nicko Cadell wrote: > > FYI. Currently log4net only supports an XML config file. Also > it is not 100% > > compatible with the log4j config file. Some of this is due to different > > terminology (e.g. using the attribute 'type' rather than > 'class' to specify > > the dynamically loaded object types), and some due to architectural > > differences. > > > > Nicko > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Bair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 18 February 2003 17:37 > > > To: Log4J Developers List > > > Subject: Configuration GUI & logging.apache.org > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > While working on a prelim version of the configuration gui we > > > noticed a > > > couple of things with respect to log4j/log4perl/c++ etc > > > > > > 1) Apparently log4perl and others support the property style config > > > files, but not xml > > > 2) in log4j the properties start like 'log4j.rootlogger', whereas perl > > > is like 'log4perl.rootlogger'. > > > > > > 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.*? > > > > > > I suppose there's no hope of supporting log.* in this release. > > > > > > 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]
