> > 33624 - I will be looking at this. > > Go Mark Go. > > > > > 34026 - I think we should still fix this. Opinions? > > Go Mark Go.
Going to look at them tonight. > > > > If I am not mistaken, we still need to test serialization with the > > new TRACE level added? If so, then I can write a bug on it. > > I ported the serialization tests from log4j 1.3 back to the log4j 1.2 > branch (Bug 26433) a few weeks ago before adding TRACE. Adding trace > (and the other changes) did not break the tests which makes me feel > relatively comfortable that none of the changes have broken > serialization. I did not add any of the unit test bugs to docs/ > HISTORY.txt since the tests are not in the distribution. > > From a code review, I believe that an older Chainsaw will not > recognized the TRACE_LEVEL in the serialized LoggingEvent but will > map it to Level.DEBUG which seems like reasonable behavior. However, > it would be good if somebody could do a sanity check and fire up > Chainsaw and see if it works okay. That is good news. Paul, Scott, someone using Chainsay, can you try 1.2.12rc1 with the old/new Chainsaw and see how it performs with the new TRACE? If anyone else has a log4j setup that uses serialization, if you can substitute 1.2.12rc1 and report back your findings, that will be helpful too. Thanks, -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
