Is it possible to use the new implementation and provide the same extension points that the old implementation provided?
Scott On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Curt Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Scott Deboy wrote: > > I think the rolling file appenders are some of the most commonly used >> appenders. If you require folks to configure two jars instead of one in >> their classpath for one of the most common uses of log4j, it's a step >> backward in my opinion. >> >> Ideally, we could change the existing RFA and DRFA to delegate to the new >> RFAs (if they were in the same jar). >> >> Is that possible? >> >> Scott >> >> > @deprecate is too strong, I just meant to add wording to indicate that > there are known problems that are difficult to address and that users should > consider the org.apache.log4j.rolling.RFA, some of the third-party RFA's and > hopefully eventually a .nio. based channel appender based on the > MultiFileAppender work. > > log4j 1.3 implemented o.a.l.RFA and DRFA as delegates to o.a.l.r.RFA. They > configured identically, however the extension points were different, so if > you had extended DRFA in log4j 1.2, your extension would not work properly > in log4j 1.3. > > To insure compatibility with apps that extended o.a.l.RFA and DRFA, we have > to thread very carefully not to disrupt those users that have worked around > the issues or have extended the behavior. However, if you were starting > new, they have really should start with something else. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
