On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 14:16 +1000, Torsten Curdt wrote:
On 4/6/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
remy ran a regression test for RC6 (thanks :)
we no long ship the jdk logger in API jar. however, tomcat uses jdk
logger as it's default. so, by
The documentation for 1.1 makes it clear that the -api.jar has no real
purpose, and should generally be avoided. Hopefully we can encourage the
next tomcat release to include the full JCL 1.1 jar.
The price paid is just mild offense to purists, who *are* correct that
this class doesn't
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 17:19 +1000, Torsten Curdt wrote:
As for the inclusion:
as long as we clearly state that the use from the API jar is deprecated
and it will be gone (from the API jar) in the next release it should be ok.
...at some stage we should just fix this.
Well, I expect 1.1 to
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 17:19 +1000, Torsten Curdt wrote:
The documentation for 1.1 makes it clear that the -api.jar has no real
purpose, and should generally be avoided. Hopefully we can encourage the
next tomcat release to include the full JCL 1.1 jar.
The price paid is just mild offense
On 4/6/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
remy ran a regression test for RC6 (thanks :)
we no long ship the jdk logger in API jar. however, tomcat uses jdk
logger as it's default. so, by excluding the jdk logger, JCL 1.1 is no
longer a drop in
robert burrell donkin wrote:
remy ran a regression test for RC6 (thanks :)
we no long ship the jdk logger in API jar. however, tomcat uses jdk
logger as it's default. so, by excluding the jdk logger, JCL 1.1 is no
longer a drop in replacement at least for tomcat.
so, i thought it'd be a good
I am in favor of putting it back (don't consider this binding though). Being able to be a drop in
replacement of previous versions is pretty important for logging I think..
Mvgr,
Martin
robert burrell donkin wrote:
remy ran a regression test for RC6 (thanks :)
we no long ship the jdk logger
