Paul Smith wrote:
On 05/04/2007, at 6:51 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
I didn't know about the MDC treatment -- I'll have to look into that.
Otherwise, I knew that #2 and #3 were covered by the existing
Chainsaw. I just didn't want to give up any of that to get #1
covered -- and don't personally
log4j 1.3 in my opinion is stuck in a hopeless position. It is too
incompatible with log4j 1.2.x to ever be recommended as a drop-in
replacement for log4j 1.2 in a production environment. However, if
you changed log4j 1.3 to be drop-in compatible with log4j 1.2, then
you would break
At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be
more of a dead end than anything else. Some
interesting things went into it, but the fact
that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx
is a real problem. Is it worth a release or do
we just leave it
At 09:09 AM 4/3/2007, Paul Smith wrote:
My somewhat superficial scan over logback shows a lot of promise from
an end user point of view. I would certainly be interested in
exploring that as an option. This is where licenses, politics and
marketing all come to a head which are never fun.
:-)
At 07:51 PM 4/3/2007, Curt Arnold wrote:
There are still API incompatibilities
(http://people.apache.org/
~carnold/compatibility.html), particularly any user extensions of
DOMConfigurator (bug 39024) would not work with log4j 1.3.
LoggingEvent is not serialization compatible (bug 35159).
At 11:34 PM 4/3/2007, Curt Arnold wrote:
Unfortunately, log4j 1.3 development proceed for a substantial amount
of time with little concern with compatibility with compatibility
with log4j 1.2 and the primary developer of log4j 1.3 has left for
other projects. We are left trying to remedy the
At 11:58 PM 4/3/2007, Jess Holle wrote:
Cu
For a 1.4.x or 2.0.x, I'm not so concerned about breaking extensions.
I'm more concerned about breaking application
code -- i.e. use of the logging APIs for logging
and for configuration thereof, including
sophisticated code that adds hierarchy
At 06:51 AM 4/4/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
Yes, I've found the drop log4j for logback
stuff from Ceki a bit disheartening. Well,
actually I found the whole sudden split from
Log4j after a vote that didn't go his way a bit
disheartening. I think the vote went the
correct way, but I wish we
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be more of a dead end than
anything else. Some interesting things went into it, but the fact
that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx is a real problem.
Is it worth a release or do
: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax:503.222.0185
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.comotivsystems.com
-Original Message-
From: Jess Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 4/4/2007 1:20 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd be keen to consider starting Chainsaw v3 from scratch along side
any post-log4j1.3-type operation and build in exceptional support for
enterprise log management, but I'm only one person, and I know many
of us are incredibly busy, but we were so active there for a while I
: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd be keen to consider starting Chainsaw v3 from scratch along side
any post-log4j1.3-type operation and build in exceptional support for
enterprise log management, but I'm only one person, and I know many
of us are incredibly busy, but we were
: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
Fax:503.222.0185
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.comotivsystems.com
-Original Message-
From: Jess Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 4/4/2007 1:29 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd
-Original Message-
From: Jess Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:21 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07:10 AM 4/3/2007, Jacob Kjome wrote:
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be more
I think it's been said before that 1.3 may be more of a dead end
than anything else. Some interesting things went into it, but the
fact that it became so incompatible with Log4j-1.2.xx is a real
problem. Is it worth a release or do we just leave it as-is,
forever alpha, and move on to
Hi
I'm just an end-user of log4j, so I have no perspective on the internal
dev issues.
But from the POV of a programmer who uses log4j in many projects, I have
to say that it's pretty great the way it is!!
It may simply be that log4j as it currently stands is good enough for
the vast majority
Largely I won't disagree.
That said, I think there is a point to having a new log4j version that
is almost entirely API (source and binary) compatible with log4j 1.2.14,
but:
1. Has finer-grained synchronization and eliminates some
possibilities that currently exist for deadlocks,
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:11 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
At 07:07 PM 4/2/2007, you wrote:
At some point we can no longer ignore the decision about where 1.3
should go
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
At some point we can no longer ignore the decision about where 1.3
should go.
I am beginning to think that we should scale back 1.3 to be less of
the planned revolution and more of a substantial-update-but-
completely-backward compatible (to
On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Largely I won't disagree.
That said, I think there is a point to having a new log4j version
that is almost entirely API (source and binary) compatible with
log4j 1.2.14, but:
Has finer-grained synchronization and eliminates some possibilities
At 12:51 PM 4/3/2007, you wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
log4j 1.3 in my opinion is stuck in a hopeless position. It is too
incompatible with log4j 1.2.x to ever be recommended as a drop-in
replacement for log4j 1.2 in a production environment. However, if
you changed
At some point we can no longer ignore the decision about where 1.3
should go.
I am beginning to think that we should scale back 1.3 to be less of
the planned revolution and more of a substantial-update-but-
completely-backward compatible (to a point).
We can then step back and think way
At 07:07 PM 4/2/2007, you wrote:
At some point we can no longer ignore the decision about where 1.3
should go.
I am beginning to think that we should scale back 1.3 to be less of
the planned revolution and more of a substantial-update-but-
completely-backward compatible (to a point).
I think
23 matches
Mail list logo
