Alexey, The whole PatternParser framework was Refactored to allow long pattern names (e.g. %level rather than %p) and to allow PatternConverters to be plugged in.
Looking at the sources again I think that the PatternParser should now be sealed as it is not intended to be overridden. Nicko > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 February 2004 23:09 > To: Log4NET Dev > Subject: Re: Should not PatternParser.Parse()&Co be virtual? > > Hello Nicko, > > It used to be in 1.2.0, but I looked in the latest sources > (1.2.1) from apache site and now it seems new patterns can be > configured without overwriting PatternParser. I could not > find any documentation on new classes. Is there any plans to > release new version any time soon? > > - Alexey. > > Nicko Cadell wrote: > > >Alexey, > > > >Is there a requirement to subclass the PatternParser? Do you have a > >specific example? If not then perhaps this class should be > sealed instead? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Nicko > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: 20 February 2004 21:27 > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Should not PatternParser.Parse()&Co be virtual? > >> > >>Otherwise there seems no way to overwrite it. > >> > >>- Alexey. > >> > >> > >> >
