Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-04-02 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 08:01 AM 4/1/2007, Paul Smith wrote: [snip] Now, back to the discussion: Markers appear to allow one to decorate a single Logging event in a point in code with a specific marker, and I'm assuming here that one could come up with some sort of Composite Marker that would allow a single event

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-04-02 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 06:10 AM 4/2/2007, you wrote: My understanding of the motivation of markers is to provide a mechanism to provide explicit context (for example, IP address of current request) for a logging call which supplements the implicit context extracted from the current thread (contents of MDC and NDC,

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-04-01 Thread Curt Arnold
My understanding of the motivation of markers is to provide a mechanism to provide explicit context (for example, IP address of current request) for a logging call which supplements the implicit context extracted from the current thread (contents of MDC and NDC, thread name, call stack).

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-31 Thread Jacob Kjome
At 04:16 PM 3/29/2007, you wrote: On 30/03/2007, at 1:11 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote: Hi Paul, Are logging domains akin to Markers in the SLF4J/Logback world? I'm in dangerous territory here because I'm really unfamiliar with SLFJ and logback, but having a browse on the logback docs I think

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-31 Thread Paul Smith
Let me see if I understand. Markers are more fine grained because they are applied individually in each logger statement. For instance, in SLF4J, you would say... logger.debug(myMarker, my message); myMarker could be a different marker each time, or it could always be the same. It's

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-29 Thread Jacob Kjome
Hi Paul, Are logging domains akin to Markers in the SLF4J/Logback world? Jake Quoting Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I just committed Revision 523581 to the logging/sandbox, but I got an email bounce saying: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) Anyway, the

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-29 Thread Curt Arnold
On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:34 AM, Paul Smith wrote: I just committed Revision 523581 to the logging/sandbox, but I got an email bounce saying: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) Anyway, the SVN URL to the project (with Eclipse .project settings..) is here:

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-29 Thread Paul Smith
On 30/03/2007, at 1:11 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote: Hi Paul, Are logging domains akin to Markers in the SLF4J/Logback world? I'm in dangerous territory here because I'm really unfamiliar with SLFJ and logback, but having a browse on the logback docs I think there is _some_ overlap, but I

Re: Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-29 Thread Paul Smith
Could you add the standard Apache Source Header to the files, plus add the LICENSE and NOTICE? That should be done by the original contributor. Totally forgot about that, thanks for the reminder. I think that org.apache.logging.domain would be preferable to org.apache.loggingdomain.

Logging Domains committed to sandbox (dodgy cvs spam email address though)

2007-03-28 Thread Paul Smith
I just committed Revision 523581 to the logging/sandbox, but I got an email bounce saying: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) Anyway, the SVN URL to the project (with Eclipse .project settings..) is here: