On 05/04/2007, at 6:51 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
I didn't know about the MDC treatment -- I'll have to look into that.
Otherwise, I knew that #2 and #3 were covered by the existing
Chainsaw. I just didn't want to give up any of that to get #1
covered -- and don't personally see any value in porting Chainsaw
to logback to achieve #1 either. The information (also news to me)
that we're really close to being able to just have Chainsaw use
log4j 1.2.x just solidifies that opinion -- though I'd be happy
with Chainsaw based upon a stable 1.4.x log4j as well. [We can
debate whether we could have a stable log4j 1.3.x and use that --
but at this point it does not matter whether this is technically
possible, the 1.3.x stream has enough of a troubled history that a
new version # is really needed to clear the air if nothing else.]
Jess, you can use Chainsaw to connect to applications using log4j1.2,
seriously. I do it all the time. The _only_ thing that I appear to
miss is that log4j1.2 binary serialization of LoggingEvents does not
currently ship all the MDC value, so while the event appears fine
inside Chainsaw, if you have juicy MDC values on an event, the MDC
bits just don't appear. This is, to me, a feature I think log4j1.2
is a must have because, really, IMHO, Context is what enterprise
logging is all about ("No Log Line is an Island").
Now, the argument that Chainsaw is built on top of an alpha release
is still sort of valid, but I think that's really a 'hidden' problem
of Chainsaw, rather than anything that is restricting a user. To the
end user, they really shouldn't care as long as it works.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
