On Apr 10, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
A good summary Curt. You'd be pointing us in the direction of making log4j 1.2 more like 1.3 though.
That wasn't the intent. I'd like to bundle the thing so that Chainsaw could be built (at least in the interim) with log4j 1.3 or with log4j 1.2.14 plus some additional jars. The hierarchy notification stuff wouldn't be in 1.2.14, but hopefully Chainsaw would only be slightly degraded with it missing. After we are comfortable that the log4j 1.2.x plus additional jars is working, then we can break the link with log4j 1.3.
I like the idea of breaking out the Receiver stuff into an optional jar for 1.2. I can't remember if log4j1.2 had the Plugins stuff, but even if it did, I'm sure I and others have made some changes to that. Again, that could be ported, but we're starting to make a significant 1.2 change, and wouldn't it make more sense to call it....1.3? :)
log4j 1.2 did not have the org.apache.log4j.plugin package. I wasn't suggesting reworking that component model into log4j 1.2. I'd suspect that log4j 2.0 would use OSGi (likely Apache Felix) or some other established component model in place of the log4j 1.3 plugin package. I guess the plugin stuff could be spun off as a distinct package that is a dependency of the receiver package and chainsaw.
As a very quick hack to 1.3, I was considering testing some 1.3 LoggingEvent changes to return MDC serialization compatibility, even if it wasn't optimal.
Thought there was an open bug for log4j 1.3 serialization compatibility but could not find it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
