It didn't go to my spam folder. I just haven't had the time to really think
about it and respond.
Ralph
On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:11 AM, alexander.rat...@materna.de wrote:
Hi,
just checking if my previous mail went to spamfolder or something because I
got no feedback yet.
Best Regards,
Perfection may be hard to achieve, but if Alexander's suggestions are an
improvement over the current schema, should we add them to the current code
base?
Remko
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Remko Popma
remko.po...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Perfection may be hard to achieve, but if Alexander's suggestions are an
improvement over the current schema, should we add them to the current
code
Alexander ,
XML validation against the XML Schema is not fully baked because the
Log4j 2 XML Schema is incomplete. Due to the current dynamic nature of
the configuration file (it's schema is tied to the Java code and the
annotations used), we need to generate the XML Schema based on these
[mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Oktober 2013 16:18
An: Log4J Users List
Betreff: Re: Log4j2 Appender attributes with strict xml config
Alexander ,
XML validation against the XML Schema is not fully baked because the Log4j 2
XML Schema is incomplete. Due to the current dynamic nature
On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
The current idea I have is that the XML Schema would reflect exactly
the code that is running. We should start with that. AFAIK, the
current code we have does not allow open-ended XML fragments, but I
could be wrong...
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
The current idea I have is that the XML Schema would reflect exactly
the code that is running. We should start with that. AFAIK, the
current
