> Thanks, I am running 1.4.2 vm and it does not look
> > like it's fixed...
> > It is real pain!.
> > robert
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:02 PM
> >
...
> > > It is real pain!.
> > > robert
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: Log4J Users List
> > > Subject:
> > like it's fixed...
> > It is real pain!.
> > robert
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: RE: I am no
M
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: RE: I am not getting stack trace from
> logger.error("error",e)?
>
>
> On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 10:45, Robert Augustyn wrote:
>
> > Hi Ceki,
>
> > I am getting just one line like:
>
> > Java.NullPointerException:
>
Paul,
Thanks, I am running 1.4.2 vm and it does not look
like it's fixed...
It is real pain!.
robert
-Original Message-
From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:02 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: I am not getting stack trace from
logger.
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 10:45, Robert Augustyn wrote:
> Hi Ceki,
> I am getting just one line like:
> Java.NullPointerException:
This maybe only a very slight possibility, but I have seen exactly what
you are describing in our production environment when we are using the
-server option under the Sun
ListSubject: Re: I am
not getting stack trace from
logger.error("error",e)?Your invocation of the
'error' method is correct. What are you observing?Have you configured
log4j?At 01:40 PM 11/27/2003 -0800, Robert Augustyn
wrote:>Hi,>I was expecting that I would get stack
Your invocation of the 'error' method is correct. What are you observing?
Have you configured log4j?
At 01:40 PM 11/27/2003 -0800, Robert Augustyn wrote:
Hi,
I was expecting that I would get stack trace from following call:
}catch(Exception e){
logger.error("Error",e);
}
What could possibly b
