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=37768>. 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=37768 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-13 19:31 ------- Think about it ... If BasicConfigurator.configure() is provided as a way to quickly configure log4j, and you can't use it without the additivity problem, then this is a bug. -Bill (In reply to comment #4) > Why should each invocation result in the same behavior when each time you call > it, you add a new ConsoleAppender (by calling BasicConfigurator.configure() > once > for reach pass which adds a new ConsoleAppender). Each console appender > appends > to the console. When you have one, you get one line, two, two lines, three, > three lines, etc... A Log4j configuration is stored statically in memory and, > as I explained before, configurations are additive; new configuration calls on > the logger repository don't blow away the old ones, they just get added on. > It's as if you had a config file that stated... > > <root> > <level value="DEBUG"/> > <appender-ref ref="Console"/> > <appender-ref ref="Console"/> > <appender-ref ref="Console"/> > <!--....--> > </root> > > Would you expect one line or multiple lines of output here? If you expect > one, > you need to modify your expectations. > > Or are you saying, "ok, I understand that, but I want Log4j to be smart about > it." "I want BasicConfigurator to detect whether there is already a > ConsoleAppender attached and, if so, use that one rather than adding a new one > to the root logger." Fair enough, but I wouldn't consider this a bug. And I > can guarantee that behavior won't change in the 1.2.xx series. It is possible > that it might change in the 1.3.xx series. I suggest that you post to the > user > list asking about whether this sort of change in behavior is desired by other > users and, if so, whether a majority of committers agree. If it is found that > users and committers agree that behavior should be changed, then this report > can > be reopened. Patches for the necesssary changes will help move things along > as > well. > > Jake -- 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]
