On 25/06/2007, at 4:32 PM, Sagi Mann wrote:
I have a few questions: I originally concentrated on ease-of-use as much as possible. I, as Arnold, am concerned that usage will become overly complex. Current use is to treat JulAppender as if it was ConsoleAppender (even replacing any refs to ConsoleAppender with JulAppender would work). This way, existing log4j apps running in JUL environments will have better integration without any changes to code or deployment (log4j config can be changed without the need to redeploy everything). Will usage be somehow affected if this appender is provided outside log4j itself? (i.e. apps may need to be redeployed, jars added, etc) Will usage be somehow affected if this appender is provided as a part of a larger "jul bridge" package (i.e. more complex configuration, env prerequisites, code changes, etc)?
In terms of code change, it is only an additional JAR file that would need to be added into a deployed project. If the JULAppender was added to log4j 1.2.15, the user would still need to update their log4j jar, so it's not really any different.
I think Curt's concerns of changing log4j 1.2.15 this late is warranted, and I don't see this Appender as a core component. I would have thought putting it in the bridge project was a logical place. "Anything java.util.logging that relates to log4j is in here".
Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
