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?
The original bridge code dealt with jul->log4j only. The new
JULAppender code provide by Sagi Mann is the symmetric equivalent.
Since the jul-log4j-bridge project requires JDK 1.4 to build, I think
it makes sense to add it to this project rather than log4j itself.
There is also some code sharing the Receiver and Appender can share
in terms of the LevelConverter interfaces.
Are the names appropriate?
Is the packaging appropriate?
Happy to discuss packaging options. I personally like:
* org.apache.log4j.jul - for code dealing with log4j<->jul or for
log4j specific code. The JULReceiver is the classic example here,
that's the package it sits in in the bridge project
* org.apache.logging.julbridge - Generic/bridge specific code, mostly
dealing with the jul packages (such as the Filter and Handler
implementations. There are no log4j related imports in this section,
so it's quite isolated.
That's what is sitting there now. I'd propose to add the JULAppender
class to org.apache.log4j.jul in the bridge project and update the
site documentation for the bridge project on how to use it
What are the performance issues?
I think the only real way to test this is a stress test, but by code
inspection it's pretty light.
Is anything overly complex?
I think you'll find it's actually all quite trivial. Be great if you
(and anyone else) could review it.
cheers,
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
