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-chainsaw has an issue affecting its community integration.
This iss
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-chainsaw has an issue affecting its community integration.
This iss
Well, since gump doesn't give access to the generated test files, no.
So, I am going to switch the appender to a console appender so we can
see the output in the gump test output when it reports the failure.
-Mark
On 2/22/06, Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sounds good, any luck tracking
We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> JDK 1.3?
Cons:
- not as universal of an option for logging
Pros:
- can use more modern, builtin
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
--
Jess Holle
Mark Womack wrote:
We have talked about this
Mark Womack wrote:
What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> JDK 1.3?
+1 for version >= JDK 1.3
with javac set to source 1.3 and target 1.3
Reasons:
- JDK 1.2 legacy(!) users have log4j 1.2.13, stable, extensible
- slow adoption of new JDKs is already fulfilled,
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
Does Java5 have this market share? For tech
On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for
"legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
It wou
Hola,
Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change
the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do
more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO...
Yoav
On 2/23/06, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>
> >
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:31 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
Ah, "concurrency" -- my favorite Log4j word... I can't really see what
Java 5 would provide in terms of better concurrency oth
Mark Womack wrote:
> We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
> but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
>
> What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> > JDK 1.3?
I do not see any reason to support 1.2 anymore. 1.3 would
The real question is how many people will not upgrade to the latest
stable JVM yet want to upgrade to the latest (currently unstable) log4j.
By the time log4j 1.3 is released, I'm guessing Java 6 will be stable,
making the question "how many won't upgrade to at least the version
prior to lates
Author: psmith
Date: Thu Feb 23 13:49:49 2006
New Revision: 380234
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=380234&view=rev
Log:
Bit of a hack for gump. The log4j main source code is not available during
a gump run, so I have set a 'gump' flag in the chainsaw gump run, which disables
generation of
Part of the equation is also the web application servers like JBoss,
etc. They are all on 1.5/5 now, but they weren't for a while there.
-Mark
On 2/23/06, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real question is how many people will not upgrade to the latest
> stable JVM yet want to upgrade
I mentioned the Scheduler specifically, but we can start using more of
the "recent" standard jdk classes. I think that is a plus. And we
are focusing on backwards compatibility with our own api.
-Mark
On 2/23/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hola,
> Since 1.3 is so focused on backw
I'd be happy with JDK 1.4 for log4j 1.3, and go 1.5 for log4j 2?
Paul
On 24/02/2006, at 10:17 AM, Mark Womack wrote:
I mentioned the Scheduler specifically, but we can start using more of
the "recent" standard jdk classes. I think that is a plus. And we
are focusing on backwards compatibilit
Author: psmith
Date: Thu Feb 23 18:35:55 2006
New Revision: 380310
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=380310&view=rev
Log:
Added documentation about how to configure ZeroConf stuff for one's application
including links to the stuff required.
Modified:
logging/log4j/trunk/docs/chainsaw.htm
Author: psmith
Date: Thu Feb 23 18:43:55 2006
New Revision: 380313
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=380313&view=rev
Log:
Activated the ZeroConf plugin, i've done testing locally and it appears to work
very well.
Only thing now is for someone else to try it...
Modified:
logging/chainsa
Well, I've committed the last doco bits and pieces for ZeroConf and
Chainsaw, and wouldn't mind a release to get some feedback.
Anyway, I'm obviously +1. If Scott +1's it, is that enough
votes.. ?Do we need a broader vote? We haven't had a vote in the
past, but maybe that's because no
I'm +1.
I do want to commit a change to VFSLogFilePatternReceiver prior to the release
(provide an optional GUI window for entering VFS username/password).
Scott Deboy
COMOTIV SYSTEMS
111 SW Columbia Street Ste. 950
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: 503.224.7496
Cell: 503.997.1367
F
ok, cool, I can wait for that. Now it's just up to the others... ?
Paul
On 24/02/2006, at 2:51 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
I'm +1.
I do want to commit a change to VFSLogFilePatternReceiver prior to
the release (provide an optional GUI window for entering VFS
username/password).
Scott Deboy
Chainsaw is still "alpha" or "beta", no? I don't think any vote is
needed. However, if a vote is needed, count me as +1.
Jake
At 01:49 PM 2/24/2006 +1100, you wrote:
>Well, I've committed the last doco bits and pieces for ZeroConf and
>Chainsaw, and wouldn't mind a release to get some feedb
On 24/02/2006, at 2:58 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
Chainsaw is still "alpha" or "beta", no? I don't think any vote is
needed. However, if a vote is needed, count me as +1.
It'd be nice if there was no 'formal' vote required, but I'm cool
either way. I guess I'll be more diligent in at leas
For those not willing or able to move past JDK1.3, it seems like they'd
also be unlikely to keep up with the latest versions of supporting
libraries such as Log4j. Since the 1.2.xx branch will always be there and
still works just fine, I don't see any problem with moving to JDK1.4, as
long a
On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Well, I've committed the last doco bits and pieces for ZeroConf and
Chainsaw, and wouldn't mind a release to get some feedback.
Anyway, I'm obviously +1. If Scott +1's it, is that enough
votes.. ?Do we need a broader vote? We haven't had
Author: sdeboy
Date: Thu Feb 23 22:42:38 2006
New Revision: 380605
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=380605&view=rev
Log:
Initial commit: LogFileXMLReceiver
Added:
logging/log4j/trunk/src/java/org/apache/log4j/xml/LogFileXMLReceiver.java
logging/log4j/trunk/src/java/org/apache/log4j
Good Morning,
Jacob Kjome wrote:
For those not willing or able to move past JDK1.3, it seems like
they'd also be unlikely to keep up with the latest versions of
supporting libraries such as Log4j.
+1 !!!
Since the 1.2.xx branch will always be there and still works just
fine, I
27 matches
Mail list logo
