On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| No, it does not. I would prefer if log4j did not either. Furthermore, I
| also suspect that some of the other committers have changed their minds
| since the last vote on the subject.
Okay.
I really don't see why you don't want trace. It is very interes
No, it does not. I would prefer if log4j did not either. Furthermore, I
also suspect that some of the other committers have changed their minds
since the last vote on the subject.
At 12:50 PM 1/10/2005, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| Yes, thanks. Have you tried UGL
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| Yes, thanks. Have you tried UGLI?
Not yet.
Does it have the trace level?! :)
Endre
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, thanks. Have you tried UGLI?
At 01:02 PM 1/7/2005, you wrote:
|
| Swapping implementations at runtime
"deploy time", wouldn't it be?
Endre
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
-
To unsub
|
| Swapping implementations at runtime
"deploy time", wouldn't it be?
Endre
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
