DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38617>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38617 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-14 20:13 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Okay, I missed that you were expecting the caller to have registered "NOTICE" by creating a derived > class prior to calling the configurator and misread the casts of the Priority.INFO et al which led me to > think you might have been working on code where Priority extends Level instead of vice-versa. Perhaps I should have been clearer on what my intensions were. > I'm concerned that the lazy initialization of the hashtable might present a threading issue. It also The lazy initialization is indeed a bit ugly. I'll see if I can fix that. And indeed it may present a threading issue. I didn't think of that yet. > continues to perpetuate the subclassing Level just to work around the protected constructor. I also How is the fact that Log4J requires subclassing Level relevant? I don't intend to change that fact here, it's just a relatively minor improvement. > don't like joining the construction and registration actions (though I understand why those were done). They could be separated. But then you lose some of the perceived elegance from the perspective of the Log4J user... > The NAME#classname is a bit ugly, but it does not require registration of the level prior to the > configuration and it only uglifies the configuration file and the benefit of the patch doesn't seem to be > sufficient to justify the potential ramifications (particularly in the 1.2.x branch) in my opinion. I disagree, because I have a practical issue here. The issue is that I don't want to specify a class name in my Log4J settings, since the latter are maintained by the IT Operations department. And class names are not in their vocabulary. Also, we provide them with documentation on log levels, but then one log level is suddenly configured differently from all the others. That's inconsistent. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
