Re: The state of RollingFileAppender

On 2011-09-12, Curt Arnold wrote: > The rolling file appenders are the single greatest cause of recurring > problems in log4j and all those problems have been inherited by > log4net. Quite possible. RollingFileAppender is responsible for more than 10% of all open log4net issues right now. > The

Re: What to do with EventLogAppender on Vista and newer?

On 2011-09-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-09-11, Roy Chastain wrote: >>> (1) document that you need to create your event sources outside of >>> your application (usually during deployment) and (2) deal with the >>> SecurityException in a more graceful way (log

Re: Forth digit in version number

On 2011-09-12, Dominik Guder wrote: > Am 09.09.2011 05:52, schrieb Stefan Bodewig: >> On 2011-09-08, Dominik Guder wrote: >>> using nant for retreiving svn revision to property svn.revision: >>> use svn log (repository access) >>> >>o

Re: Possible new code - DynamicPatternLayout

On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote: > I have a new class that I implemented several years ago. It provides a > DynamicPatternConverter. Its primary purpose is to provide dynamic > headers and footers in logs. Aren't you paying a big price for this by also making the "normal" pattern dynamic? Ma

Re: Possible new code - DynamicPatternLayout

On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote: > No price. Only the header and footer as surfaced in the new class, so > the other properties resort back to their normal processing. In > reality, the ConversionPattern for the log output is already dynamic, > but header and footer were not treated the same.

Trailing dots in names for NamedPatternConverter and precision > 0

Hi, I wanted to fix LOG4NET-215 and started by writing a few tests for the existing code (as it looked unnecessarily complex to me) and stumbled over the case of trailing dots - which is the reason the code looked so complex in the first place. NamedPatternConverter is the base class used by %log

Name for MutexLock?

Hi, LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file without repeatedly opening and closing it. The main remaining issue is its name

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which >> technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log >> file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file >> without repeatedly opening and clos

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-13, Roy Chastain wrote: > I like InterProcessLock and would like to propose MultiProcessLock as my > favorite. > I HOPE that the documentation will indicate what a bad plan this is and > that a remoteing appender etc might be a better plan. You can always ensure it does by providing t

diffs between 1.2.10 and current trunk

Hi all, in order to shape up for the release I diffed the 1.2.10 release ZIP source tree against current trunk's src and used BitDiffer from bitwidgets[1] to compare the DEBUG assemblies targeting 2.0 in binary. The results can be found in The so

Re: diffs between 1.2.10 and current trunk

On 2011-09-14, Ron Grabowski wrote: > The signature changes from void to ICollection shouldn't break > anything. I agree. > Now the configurators return a list of configuration messages. I > suppose it should return an array of a certain type instead of just > ICollection. Maybe something like C

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-14, Ron Grabowski wrote: > Can you share a config snippet showing how to use the RemotingAppender > like you've described? We used to have an extraordinally simple Windows Service at $work that didn't do much but using log4net writing to a file and starting the RemoteLoggingServerPlugi

Re: Internals question

On 2011-09-15, Roy Chastain wrote: > Hopefully someone knows the answer so I do not have to search through > the code. I did a quick grepp through the code as I wasn't sure myself. > If a configuration for an appender is activated, then changed and > activated again, is there a new instance of t

Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

Hi all, I now have an environment that builds .NET 1.1 up to 4.0 (including client profile) and both Mono targets. For .NET 1.0 and ECMA I can't find any traces, for SSCLI 1.0 I do find hints at a source code only download for the 2.0 version but don't have any idea whether this would work with N

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

On 2011-09-15, Roy Chastain wrote: > I have successfully installed VS 2008 and even VS 2005 after installing > VS 2010. I was hoping to set up my build machine without installing anything non-free 8-( > Just in case, do not confuse the Compact Framework with the 3.5/4.0 > Client Framework or the

ExclusiveLock on Mono/Linux

Hi, I'm down to one failing test on my Ubuntu Linux box (Ubuntu 10.4 with Mono 2.4, I'm conservative 8-): RollingFileAppender.TestExclusiveLockLocks. What happens on Linux is that an attempt to open a locked file throws an exception (as expected by the test) but the file is truncated anyway. Afte

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

On 2011-09-16, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-09-15, Roy Chastain wrote: >> You have to go back to VS.NET (circa 2000) for .NET 1.0. I really hope >> no one is still using 1.0. > Maybe it is time to drop support for it with 1.2.11 already. A kind soul still found the .NET 1

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

On 2011-09-15, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > For .NET 1.0 and ECMA I can't find any traces, Both are the same - and covered now. > for SSCLI 1.0 I do find hints at a source code only download for the > 2.0 version but don't have any idea whether this would work with NAnt > (an

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

On 2011-09-16, Roy Chastain wrote: > I am trying to remember if there were two version of the "compact > framework". I am not sure of my memory, BUT I think there was both CF > 1.1 and 2.0 release. If so, that most likely means both versions. The NAnt build file has compilation targets for CF 1

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

On 2011-09-16, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > I did not install the 2.0 SDK but the 3.5SP1 one, maybe the CF tools are > part of the 2.0 SDK, I'll give that a try as well. After installing .NET SDK 2.0 the NAnt build also tries to build the CF 2.0 stuff, but not the 1.0 stuff. Getting closer. Stefan

Re: Does anybody have any idea on where to find the really old framework (and CF) SDKs?

Hi Gert, great to hear from you. On 2011-09-16, wrote: > If I recall correctly, the CF tools are/were only available as part of > Visual Studio. The .NET 2.0 SDK provided the command line tools required to build the CF 2.0 assembly. The same is not true for CF 1.0. > I can provide you with t

Are we going to ship the examples with the binary distributions?

Hi all, I'm currently trying to make the necessary site modifications for the 1.2.11 release (for example we no longer build with VS < 2008) and wondered whether we intend to bundle the examples with the binary distributions. If not, I can remove all links to them as the source dirstribution will

Re: New RollingFileAppender semantics

On 2011-09-18, Roy Chastain wrote: > After having spent two weekends looking at and playing with the code, I > have decided that I do not have clear understanding of my target. Poor you. > Given that it appears that I am going to break the internal contract for > RFA and the ambiguity in the cur

Re: New RollingFileAppender semantics

On 2011-09-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> 3) - Any date portion in a file name be prefixed with a . as if it were >> an extension. > +1, but one should be able to change the "spacer" character. "." is a > nuisance to regex parse a logfile, where "-" is tangentially easier. +1 for an option to rep

Re: New RollingFileAppender semantics

On 2011-09-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Grouping the properties that affect the rolling strategy and separating >> them from the others makes sense to me. > It may be even a nice to implement it like that. This opens ways to > something like this: > > > >

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-13, Roy Chastain wrote: > I like InterProcessLock and would like to propose MultiProcessLock as my > favorite. InterProcessLock it is. > I HOPE that the documentation will indicate what a bad plan this is and > that a remoteing appender etc might be a better plan. Please take a look

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote: > lease/faq.xml> looks good with the exception of ") and has also be paid > for by a loss in performance." > May I suggest a rewording of ". The acquisition and release of a Mutex > for

Re: Name for MutexLock?

On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote: > Based on the below, I would suggest a big disclaimer that RFA will NOT > LOCK with Mutex during the rolling and will lead to extremely > unpredictable results. > Just put the disclaimer where you mention that RFA will make it worse. Done, at least I think so.

Re: New RollingFileAppender semantics

On 2011-09-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I believe that I have to explain this further. My idea is to split the > rolling into two parts: > * rolling condition > * file naming strategy +1 Stefan

Dropping Support for .NET CF 1.0 and SSCLI 1.0 in log4net 1.2.11

Hi all, sorry for the cross-post but I'd like to catch "oh no, you can't do that!" responses as soon as possible. Apart from a few documentation and packaging issues Apache log4net 1.2.11 seems to be pretty much ready for a release. One thing that is holding up the process is the - let's say dat

Re: Forth digit in version number

Hi all, after playing with it I was faced with a compiler warning about the format. "Standard" version formats require the numbers to be unsigned shorts whose range the ASF's svn revisions have long left behind. The result is not only a warning that we could ignore but also a version number that

Re: Forth digit in version number

On 2011-09-21, Michael Schall wrote: > I think it would be beneficial to add the svn url (with revision) to > the assembly description then so this information is available to the > end user. svn trunk will now add it to the AssemblyDescription attribute. Stefan

Re: I will not be working on RFA Next Gen

On 2011-09-28, Roy Chastain wrote: > Best of luck to all. Sorry to hear that. Stefan

Status of 1.2.11

Hi all, unfortunately I had real-life interfere and was unable to devote as much time as I wanted to. AFAICS the only things missing now are some updates to the NAnt build system to create the distribution files - which are different from what was packaged as 1.2.10 - and some updates to the site

Re: TPL DataFlows

On 2011-09-29, Ron Grabowski wrote: > Has anyone played around with TPL DataFlows yet? No real work, just read up on it. > It looks like it could be next step beyond using a concurrent queue > for async message processing. Yes, it looks interesting. Stefan

Testbuilds for 1.2.11

Hi all, there are three ZIPs in that correspond to what a release would look like. I mainly created them to validate the build scripts but if you want to you may view them as some sort of release candidate. The archives have been created from trunk, t

Re: RFA-NG review

Hi Dominik, On 2011-09-30, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I request some feedback on the RFA-NG patch while I'm working on it. Thank you for working on it and thank you for nagging. The coming weekend - including the German holiday on Monday - is going to be quite hectic (two birthdays in the family

Re: RFA-NG review

On 2011-10-01, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Hi Stefan, >> The coming weekend - including the German holiday on Monday - is going >> to be quite hectic (two birthdays in the family and a "Polterabend"[1] >> in the neighborhood) for me. I don't expect to find time looking over >> your code until next

Re: RFA-NG review

On 2011-10-04, Dominik Psenner wrote: >>> Don't forget the "böllern" >> Fortunately we don't do that in the lower rhine area 8-) > How comes that? The last time I've seen it was about a month ago. There they > used flasks of gas having the length of half a meter. It could have easily > been mist

WebSite for 1.2.11 - Please Review

Hi all, I've created and uploaded the website that I've adapted for the 1.2.11 release. As it contains a few bigger changes I'd like you to review those before I build the release and call for an official vote (planned for tomorrow in my timezone unless any sort of blocker is found prior to that)

Re: WebSite for 1.2.11 - Please Review

On 2011-10-05, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I believe the prerequisites in FAQ could be updated to not mention .net > runtime 1.0/1.1 since the release doesn't include binaries for them. It does (it won't contain binaries for Compact Framework 1.0). Stefan

Re: WebSite for 1.2.11 - Please Review

On 2011-10-05, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I'm going back into my hideout .. No reason to. > sorry for the noise. Sorry if I sounded harsh and thank you for your feedback. Stefan

Re: WebSite for 1.2.11 - Please Review

On 2011-10-05, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > I looked at all pages, nothing found. I have checked brandmark > requirements, all well. Thanks > Just a minor thing, not important: if you go to this link: > http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/site/issue-tracking.html > Issue tracking is 2 time

ReviewBoard for log4net

Hi, for anybody who wants to give it a try, there now is a ReviewBoard group at Stefan

[VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

It's been a long time since the last log4net release and we've accumulated quite a few changes. It is about time to cut a new release. [scp dumped core on me repeatedly while I tried to copy the files to people.apache.org that's why I've temporarily put the ZIPs on my server.] log4net

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-06, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 1900 GMT 9-Oct 2011 > [X] +1 Release these artifacts > [ ] +0 OK, but... > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... > [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... +1 Stefan

Re: Release testing

On 2011-10-07, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > I have not found sha1 files. They seem to be standard on most > projects, so my guess is you don't want them. Right? The 1.2.10 release didn't have them, so I didn't create any (it would still be trivial to add .sha1s if anybody wants them). > I have n

PMC-Votes NEEDED [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

se we need three PMC votes. I'll keep this vote open a bit longer before I call it failed. Stefan On 2011-10-06, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > It's been a long time since the last log4net release and we've > accumulated quite a few changes. It is about time to cut a new rel

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-10, Scott Deboy wrote: > +1 > I've wandered through the website and checked the rat report, I don't have > time to pull down the sources and try to build myself. Thank you for checking Stefan

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-10, Curt Arnold wrote: > Has anyone compared how the new log4net.dll performs with the previous > release's test suite? I just did. You have to tweak log4net 1.2.10's build file in the tests directory to make it work with .NET 2.0 and explicitly run it with nant -t:net-2.0 as 1.2.10 d

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-10, Ivan Habunek wrote: > +1 (binding) > I'm not a .net user so I didn't check the actual code performance. > I'll believe you when you say it's much better. :) Thanks, Ivan. Only time will tell about "better", at least it will allow log4net to be used in more modern scenarios. I'll

[RESULT] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

Hi all, the vote has passed with five +1s by PMC members (Scott, Ivan, Christian, Ron, myself) and two further +1s by community members (Javier, Dominik) and I'll proceed with the process. The release artifacts are already in the dist area and are waiting for the mirrors to pick them up. Once I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote: > Observations: > comparing the source zip with the SVN tag, the following items are not in the > source zip: > doap_log4net.rdf (DOAP file placed here for convenience) Excluded deliberately. IMHO it shouldn't be in trunk at all but rather a directory level a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote: > both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll > describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework > 2.0. Everybody else has the expected application description. Those two DLLs are the same file as there currently is no difference

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

On 2011-10-12, Curt Arnold wrote: > On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote: >>> both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll >>> describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework >

Re: All mirror links broken?

On 2011-10-12, cremor wrote: > I just saw that the new site with the 1.2.11 release was published > (many thanks for that btw!) so I assume it should be downloadable > too. Yes, it is. > But all the mirror links are broken for me. I know and that's why I haven't sent out the announcement yet.

[ANN] Apache log4net 1.2.11 Released

http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/faq.html#two-snks for details. The binary distributions no longer contain assemblies built for the Compact Framework 1.0 or the Shared Source CLI - you can build those yourself using the source distribution. Stefan Bodewig on behalf of the log4net

New download page

Hi all, based on the download pages of Ant and Commons I've created a new download page for log4net currently visible at This page is more user friendly as it provides direct links to the mirrored files and thus saves one more

Re: Old / new key flaw

On 2011-12-23, Ramon Smits wrote: > I can share some thought about this new key philosophy regarding they > anyone should be able to patch it but I think it is wrong. How can I > validate a package from untrusted sources if they have access to the > 'official' private key ? The only official bina

Re: SDK docs on apache.org don't display properly

On 2012-01-13, Ron Grabowski wrote: > Anyone know why there are extended chars in most of the log4net ndoc > files? For example this page has empty-blocks in IE9 and > triangle-question-marks in Firefox: No idea, I used the existing ndoc target in the NAnt build file that I assume has been used f

Re: Proposed bug fix for AspNetRequestPatternConverter.Convert()

On 2012-04-11, Ron Grabowski wrote: > The converter is trying to protect itself...the base class checks to > make sure HttpContext.Current is not null then a check against Request > is made: > Sounds like checking the property throws an exception. Its probably ok > to just add in a try/catch and

Trouble Creating API Docs

Hi all, we currently create the online API docs via the ancient NDoc and HTML Help compiler combo. When I put together the 1.2.11 release I was lucky enough to use a machine that had been in use for a long time and so had all the required pieces installed. Now my dev environment is a freshly set

Re: (LOG4NET-338) Port of log4net for MonoDroid

Hi, [CCing you since I'm not sure you are subscribed to the list] > I've made a port of log4net to MonoDroid (Mono for Android). This really looks interesting. Can you tell us a little bit about it - I must admit I'm a total ignorant when it comes to MonoDroid. Have you faced any major problem

Welcome Dominik Psenner as new Committer

Dear log4net community, it is my pleasure to inform you, Dominik has been elected as a new committer to the project. He's been active around here for quite some time and will now be able to work on the code base directly. I'm sure the project is going to benefit a lot from him. Welcome Dominik

Re: Async logging

On 2012-06-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > In response to > > I would like to start a discussion how log4net should support > asynchronous logging. Tom Tang implemented a general async forwarding > appender that glues toget

Re: Async logging

On 2012-06-08, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> * the ThreadPool should be used in favour over a designated worker Thread > no idea becuase I have no clue on .NET, but it sounds like fun :-) .Net has a built-in thread pool it uses fo

Re: FW: Add new FAQ entry

On 2012-11-28, Dominik Psenner wrote: > *hm* .. using maven 2.2.1 it seems to work flawlessly. At least it does not > produce warnings. ;-) I checked the site and mostly only the dates are > changed now. *yay!* [Sorry for being almost totally absent, and not only here. Currently I have no idea w

Re: Nightly builds

On 2013-03-06, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Now that we are talking about superhuman power. Stefan, are you still > out there somewhere? ;-) The honest answer probably is "barely". I keep hoping to find time to get more involved again. As for nightly builds. I don't think you want to build the ful

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: log4net-trunk-build #1

On 2013-08-01, Dominik Psenner wrote: > The last few lines indicate a windows 7 security related issue with > nant. Yes, I know, I've already told our infra guys. > I've run into this a few time Same here:

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : log4net-trunk-build #3

On 2013-08-03, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Looks like it is working. Here we have the first nightly build: > https://builds.apache.org/job/log4net-trunk-build/ws/bin/*zip*/log4net-nightly.zip > Only Mono is left out of the build. > Hooray! Yes, many thanks to Gav and the infra crew for installing

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : log4net-trunk-build #3

On 2013-08-03, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Whether it builds cleanly or not doesn't actually matter. We can fix the > errors when the build system builds our targets. When the tests are run too > it seems to be complete. I've just enabled the tests, they'll probably run on .NET 4.0. Just before tha

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: log4net-trunk-build #4

On 2013-08-05, Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > See this fails because NUnit isn't found. I vaguely recall I had to copy the nunit framework DLL to the test's bin directory to make things work but haven't touched my build setup in such

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : log4net-trunk-build #8

I've cheated and disabled the tests again for now :-)

Tagging 1.2.12

Hi, I now think I have a build environment (again) that allows me to cut a release. One thing I noticed is that the same XP VM I used to build the 1.2.11 release from no longer wants to build the Compact Framework 2.x binaries. One of the software updates of the past two years must have "improve

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > There is: > I've just run the tests and the RemotingAppenderTests seem to fail. Until > now I don't know why. Ideas? Line 103? Yes, fails for me as well. I'll look into it later, can't promise to come up with an idea, though :-) I get two more test erro

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-08, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2013-08-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> There is: >> I've just run the tests and the RemotingAppenderTests seem to fail. Until >> now I don't know why. Ideas? > Line 103? Yes, fails for me as well. I'll look in

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > * Further I changed PatternLayoutTest like this: > -Assert.AreEqual("RuntimeMethodHandle._InvokeMethodFast > > PatternLayoutTest.TestStackTracePattern", stringAppender.GetString(), "stack > trace value set"); > +Assert.AreEqual("System.RuntimeMet

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I've just run the tests and the RemotingAppenderTests seem to fail. Until > now I don't know why. Ideas? All tests pass for me in trunk now. Stefan

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I've just re-run the tests and all RemotingAppenderTest are failing. I've > digged how stacktraces are exchanged in remoted events so that might have > broken something. :-( Strange, they pass for me. Anyway, I'll hold back building the release to give you

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > It may be related to some of those new and fancy security restrictions > introduced with Win7. On which windows do you run the tests, Stefan? XP, otherwise I'd be unable to create the .NET 1.x builds. Stefan

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-08-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Do you have the possibility to try the tests on a win7? Not without quite a bit of effort (i.e. obtaining an Apache MSDN subscription and installing win7 in the first place :-). You may want to check out the svn tag of log4net 1.2.11 and see whether the t

Ideas for a new RollingFileAppender

[just changing the subject :-)] On 2013-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Yesterday it became quite late and I had not the mental force to write down > my vision of the RFA reimplementation: > The log filename should be determined dynamically to allow users including > information like %date, %t

Re: Ideas for a new RollingFileAppender

On 2013-08-13, d_k wrote: > Whats wrong with rolling on logging events? For one we have JIRA issues that say something is wrong :-) OK, as long as your application logs frequently, there is no problem. But if you have a policy that rolls on date boundaries and your application tends to be idle a

Re: Ideas for a new RollingFileAppender

On 2013-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > The log filename should be determined dynamically to allow users including > information like %date, %time in the filename. It has often been requested > and up to now it is supported only marginally. +1 > Another issue that I just remembered now is that c

Re: Ideas for a new RollingFileAppender

>> You've looked into this far more than I have but do your really feel the >> persistent storage is needed? To me scenarios like "I have manually >> deleted some log files" or "I have reconfigured the rolling conditions" >> don't really have to be supported by our rolling logic. If people >> in

Re: Ideas for a new RollingFileAppender

On 2013-08-14, Dominik Psenner wrote: > 2013/8/14 Stefan Bodewig >>> The application runs for 3 days and thus log4net rolls the logfile 3 >>> times. >> Well, I live in a world where all log files of an application are kept >> inside the same folder :-) >

Re: Multi process Logging in to same file

On 2013-09-02, ramprasad.sayana wrote: > I am using log4net dll in my project > Am able to write to a file successfully. > Problem is...If I run my exe parallelly, logging from second exe is > stopped until first exe's execution is completed. http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/faq.html

Re: Tagging 1.2.12

On 2013-09-06, Dominik Psenner wrote: > And yet another month went past and I've got to apologize for being unable > to test this so far on another machine. However, since this is no regression > from 1.2.11 and the tests fail only for me and I was unable to find out > what's actually going on on

[VOTE] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

Hi all, after about two years it's more than about time to cut a new release. log4net 1.2.12 RC1 is available for review here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net (revision 2850) Details of changes since 1.2.11 are in the release notes: http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

On 2013-09-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I'm not checking the source changes but only website stuff etc. At a first > glance I found these issues on the web page: > * the download page is broken I should have said so. Yes, this is to be expected as I must not run CGIs from my homedir. > * the S

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

I forgot to explicitly add my own +1 to the release. On 2013-09-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: >A minor gotcha I can see (on ubuntu at the moment) is, that the SDK TOC >on the left is only a few pixels high where it should probably use the >entire vertical space: >Maybe it's just a ch

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

On 2013-09-10, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > +1 > I did the usual checks but due to a different OS I am not able to run > the tests (without lot of efforts :-)). Thanks :-) > Please note, teh Apache Rat 0.10 looks a bit different than the one below. > Unapproved licenses: > log4net-1.2.12/lo

Release Preparations Are On The Way

Hi all, even though 72 hours are not up, I've aleady copied the zips to the distribution area to give the mirrors a head-start. Right now a commit for the website is underway as well. Unless a -1 shows up I'll make flip the switch on the website and send out vote result and announce mails in a f

Re: Release Preparations Are On The Way

On 2013-09-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > even though 72 hours are not up, I've aleady copied the zips to the > distribution area to give the mirrors a head-start. Right now a commit > for the website is underway as well. If you go to http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.1

[RESULT] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

With three +1 by Dominik, Christian and myself and no other votes the release has been accepted. I've already copied the distribution archives and will now proceed with the rest of the release process. I'll change the site to reflect the new release immediately but will hold off sending out the a

Re: [RESULT] Release log4net 1.2.12 based on RC1

On 2013-09-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Now that the SDK reference is on logging.apache.org the page encoding is > broken again. There's something fishy going there. See this screenshot: Ouch. The main difference is one svn commit/checkout cycle. I think svn expects files to have an UTF-8 encod

[ANN] Apache log4net 1.2.12 Released

release. For complete information on log4net, including instructions on how to submit bug reports, patches, or suggestions for improvement, see the Apache log4net website: http://logging.apache.org/log4net/ Stefan Bodewig on behalf of the log4net community -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version

Re: NuGet package distribution

On 2013-10-04, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Recently the noise about NuGet packages became louder and the time has come > talk about this. We know of two open issues that have to be addressed by the > owner of the NuGet package distribution: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-395 > https

Is it time to move to 2.0?

Hi all, not sure whether I find an audience big enough or whether we need to expand this to the user list. One option to get out of the oldkey/newkey problems mentioned in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-397 would be to make the move to a log4net2 assembly. The short term plan woul

Re: Is it time to move to 2.0?

On 2013-10-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > 1.2.11 already contained breaking changes and so did 1.2.12. Thus I would > not mind breaking backwards compatibility within 1.X even further. The next > good milestone could be 1.3 RC1 since we won't be compatible with log4j2 and > we should go to 2.X only

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >