On Jun 24, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
I haven't been tracking the JUL <-> log4j stuff as well as I would
like, but there are enough things that I'm unsettled with that I'm
not ready to see them in an imminent release.
If you're feeling unsettled, I would appreciate it if you could
tell us what is unsettling you? It's hard to address any issues
without feedback.
I try to avoid making comments until I've done my homework. There
didn't seem to be urgent need for review until the possibility of
adding new code to log4j 1.2.15 was suggested. I'll try to review
the code tomorrow but I'm (over) booked today. If anyone wants to
post of summary of the current log4j/jul interoperability code, its
packaging and design (or better yet, write documentation for the
projects and post links to the list), that would be helpful.
Answers that I'd be looking for:
Are the log4j->jul and jul->log4j solutions symmetric: For example,
if there is a JULAppender, is there a corresponding Log4jHandler?
Are the names appropriate?
Is the packaging appropriate?
What are the performance issues?
Is anything overly complex?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
