RE: [PROPOSAL] SocketHubAppender change - allow auto port choice

2007-11-05 Thread Scott Deboy
+1 Scott -Original Message- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 11/5/2007 4:55 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: [PROPOSAL] SocketHubAppender change - allow auto port choice I'd like to propose a change to SocketHubAppender code to allow it automatically choose a

[PROPOSAL] SocketHubAppender change - allow auto port choice

2007-11-05 Thread Paul Smith
I'd like to propose a change to SocketHubAppender code to allow it automatically choose a free port on the local host if the Port property is configured with 0.This will allow the Zeroconf module to be more useful, and allow simpler configuration for multiple applications on the same host.  We have

Re: Alternative Asynchronous Appender

2007-11-05 Thread Simon Park
Hi Curt, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm afraid I don't fully understand the design decision to enable logging events to be discarded. If a piece of information is sufficiently expendable, then why bother logging it in the first place? I guess the community pressure to incorporate t

Steps for making a code contribution?

2007-11-05 Thread Will Sargent
Hi all, I have a layered configurator that I'd like to contribute to log4j, either as a companion or in the core code. I've read through the wiki on http://wiki.apache.org/logging-log4j/ContributingCode and a description and zip of the code is currently here: http://tersesystems.com/code/in

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project logging-log4j-12-tests (in module logging-log4j-12) failed

2007-11-05 Thread carnold
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project logging-log4j-12-tests has an issue affecting its community integration. This iss