I didn't know about the forced migration, however that might be
true. The Jakarta Wiki describes their migration as an
infrastructure desired event. If there is a Subversion migration
in our future, then it might be best to try to get all the version
control pain over in one shot.
Hi,
There has been so much conversion to subversion recently in other areas
of Jakarta, and I'm sure I read an email somewhere that the goal was to
have everyone over to SVN by the end of the year, but I wouldn't trust
my memory on things...
You read correctly: Henri Yandell sent an email
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33708.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
Spotlight and Indexing service appear to be about finding the file
that matches a query, IIRC. With Lucene there is more flexibility.
Taking a classic Log file, I've created a lucene Document with 1 Field
for each and every line of text in the
On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:13 AM, Knut Wannheden wrote:
The HiveMind appender implementation in question does subclass
AppenderSkeleton
(ViewCVS: http://tinyurl.com/4w83k).
I was wondering if the issue could be resolved if the HiveMind
appender would
declare an isActive() method and the check above
Hello,
Have you already thought about loading per default not the first best
log4j.xml file? I have several modules like a core module. These modules
are available as jar files. In each jar file there is a log4j.xml file.
Now I write my application which has a dependency to the core module. If I
At 03:44 AM 2/23/2005, Paul Smith wrote:
Hey All,
Chainsaw is getting big. What does everyone think about moving Chainsaw
out into it's own CVS module and making it a 'client' of the log4j library?
In Eclipse one can make a Project have a dependency on another project, so
that makes it nice
I agree, it makes sense to move Chainsaw to its own module.
I'm not as enthusiastic about making Chainsaw a subproject - I'm not against
the idea, but I think the developer community (hey, 2 or 3 is a community,
right?) is too small to pass LS or Apache's expectations for a self-sustaining
-Original Message-
From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:44 PM
To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org
Subject: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module?
Hey All,
Chainsaw is getting big. What does everyone think about moving Chainsaw
out into it's own
Martin,
Others can chime in here, but my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea
to include configuration files as part of jar files and changing the default
behavior. The configuration of the log4j, what appenders are created, what
logger messages are sent to where, all of that should be
At 06:05 PM 2/23/2005, you wrote:
Martin,
Others can chime in here, but my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea
to include configuration files as part of jar files and changing the default
behavior. The configuration of the log4j, what appenders are created, what
logger messages are sent to
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33708.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
ceki2005/02/23 10:37:39
Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j/spi ComponentBase.java
Log:
Added new getLoggerRepository method to ComponentBase. ComponentBase already
knows about its owning LR.
Revision ChangesPath
1.6 +9 -0
Mark,
The getLoggerRepository(ExecutionContext ec) method should not be part of
the Action class because ComponentBase already knows about its LR. The
method getLoggerRepository should be removed from Action and should not
have been part of RepositoryPropertyAction.
At 06:24 AM 2/22/2005,
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33708.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 05:25 PM 2/23/2005, Scott Deboy wrote:
I agree, it makes sense to move Chainsaw to its own module.
OK. I'll create a module called 'logging-chainsaw' or do you prefer
another name?
logging-chainsaw is fine by me, I don't mind handling the creation of
the module unless
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33717.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Since the message was not prefaced with [VOTE] I figured this was more a
matter of opinion than one of actual voting/deciding. And Paul has
subsequently called an official vote.
If any logging services project wants to move to SVN ahead of a coordinated
effort, who am I to stop them?
And I am
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Jake
Quoting Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is a formalization of the thread 'Chainsaw as seperate CVS module'.
1. Propose to move out Chainsaw sources into it's own CVS module,
'logging-chainsaw'. Chainsaw will rely on a log4j 1.3 build.
2. Propose to make the new
carnold 2005/02/23 16:59:15
Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j AppenderSkeleton.java
Log:
Iterating on Hivemind breakage
Revision ChangesPath
1.37 +20 -18
logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/AppenderSkeleton.java
Index: AppenderSkeleton.java
Hola,
I don't think we should subclass it as final. That's a radical measure far
beyond a recommendation, and we can't assume we know all the
use-cases/scenarios under which people might want to subclass Logger.
The above applies to most open-source code, especially utility-level stuff
like
yes, it is pretty brutal. I thought if it was 'in the best interests'
of the user we could consider it, but as I said, I don't really
understand the use cases that may benefit from sub-classing Logger.
"Nothing to see here, move along now". :D
Paul
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
I don't think
On Feb 23, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
yes, it is pretty brutal. I thought if it was 'in the best
interests' of the user we could consider it, but as I said, I don't
really understand the use cases that may benefit from sub-classing
Logger.
I've had several discussions with log4cxx
ok, only Ceki's vote to go, and I understand he's still recovering from
some hardware problems. In a recent mail, Ceki intimated he was, in
principle, in favour, so I will _begin_ this process locally, but not
commit, and wait until Ceki has a chance to cast his vote.
cheers,
Paul Smith
Paul
25 matches
Mail list logo
