On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
This seems like such vast overkill. I'm not arguing the technical points here,
I accept them all just fine. But it's configuration of a logging toolkit,
that's all, and the current stuff has been working just fine for years now.
How did we get into this level of in-depth discussion? ;)
Yoav
Most of the discussions arose from the work on the JoranConfigurator which is a functional replacement for the DOMConfigurator. There is some tension since the JoranConfigurator is in some ways a new start, but needs to keep some degree of compatibility with the existing configuration documents.
Some of the issues have involved fairly established XML practice that wasn't properly implemented in DOMConfigurator. The mess is trying to work out how to do it right and maintain some backwards compatibility. If not done right, then we end up some log4j-specific mutant of XML.
The best example of this is the use of the log4j namespace prefix. Per the namespaces spec, these two documents should have identical interpretations:
<log4j:configuration xmlns:log4j="http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/"/>
<configuration xmlns="http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/"/>
However, the current DOMConfigurator will only accept the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
