+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]

Reply via email to