> After reading the thread over a couple of times, could I summarise the > feeling of the group, that the format: > > <log4j:mdc> > <log4j:data name="key1" value="val1"/> > <log4j:data name="key2" value="val2"/> > ... > </log4j:mdc> > > would be acceptable to the group? (along with valid > Transform.escapeTag > stuff) > > The <log4j:data> element could/should/would also be a valid > sub-node of the > <log4j:propertySet> node. This seems like a good idea.
+1 > Since I am > unfamiliar with the propertySet stuff, could I suggest that that > modification is a treated as a separate task after the MDC has been > integrated? I'd rather not bite off too much right now, and > come back to it > after MDC is working nicely. +1 -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
