+1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 March 2003 21:32 > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: Adding more MDC support to several classes > > > Ok, thanks everyone for their input. I'm learning things > about XML on the way, so thanks. > > 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. 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. > > Scott Deboy has kindly mailed me a DTD that he was using for > his Chainsaw work & MDC, so it looks like I can easily modify > that to suite the above format. > > Could everyone/anyone with voting privs +1/+0/-0/-1 the above > format so I can proceed? Or is there more to discuss? > > Thanks. > > Paul Smith > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]