headers
Ceki Gülcü | 1 May 2004 15:09
Picon
Gravatar

RE: An odd configuration need...


At 12:54 AM 4/30/2004, Paul Smith wrote:
>Yes, you have some good points there.  I don't think we could _guarantee_
>that an interface might change, but I would think that it is incredibly
>unlikely at this point.  The only foreseeable changes would be additional
>objects/components or methods.  But again, I can't give you that 100% money
>back guarantee.
>
>You can always look at the new things in 1.3 that you are interested in (new
>Rolling architecture), have a look at the  test cases that Ceki has written
>for them and make an evaluation as to how stable it looks.  My vote would be
>that this area is looking very good.
>
>You can then do your own testing, and provide us any feedback. You can even
>make the fixes and send us the patches from your experience!  :)

The reason the treating the current CVS as alpha is to allow us room
to maneuver in the future. With hundreds of thousands of developers
using log4j, the pressure of user questions and bug reports can be
really overwhelming.

I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
1.3 alpha.

The official release of 1.3 requires much more work, in particular a
significant internal revamp to support domains.

>Paul Smith
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Paul Smith | 3 May 2004 00:12
Picon

RE: How Do I Find Out If log4j Has Been Configured?

> Hi,
> You know, though, I would argue that in the absence of any 
> configuration
> all logging statements should be output to the console.  So 
> in a sense,
> I'd like to have BasicConfigurator.configure called 
> automatically on the
> first logging statement if no other configuration has been done.  Then
> you'd get the current warning that log4j hasn't been configured, and
> from that point on all output at DEBUG level to the console.  The
> principle that a logging system should never hide/reject logging
> statements unless explicitly configured to do so is very strong.  It
> trumps everything else a logging system should do, pretty much,
> including good performance.

I totally agree, when Log4j can detect that nothing has configured it on the
first log call, then the fail-safe method would be to log everything to the
console.  Verbose or not, at least you know what's happening in your
application, and in some was the verbosity will make you want to work out
how to correctly configure it...

What would be nice is to have the warning message about "no appenders
configured" should contain a URL to point to a web page with more
information about what this statement means, so that those not familiar with
it (and perhaps log4j) have a point of reference .

cheers,

Paul Smith
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Endre Stølsvik | 3 May 2004 10:32

RE: An odd configuration need...

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

| I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
| chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
| work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
| 1.3 alpha.

Frustrating? Hell yes: TRACE level!!

|
| The official release of 1.3 requires much more work, in particular a
| significant internal revamp to support domains.

Why not call that 2.0, and get 1.3 out the door?

Seems to me like domains are stuff far off - they are "on the drawing
board". Should the 1.3 be put on hold  -that long-?

And why not call it 2.0 to signify that conceptual big change?

Endre.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ceki Gülcü | 3 May 2004 14:50
Picon
Gravatar

RE: An odd configuration need...

At 10:32 AM 5/3/2004, you wrote:
>On Sat, 1 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>| I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
>| chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
>| work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
>| 1.3 alpha.
>
>Frustrating? Hell yes: TRACE level!!

You perpetual whining does not help project move forward. Please stop.

>Endre.

--

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Endre Stølsvik | 3 May 2004 15:34

RE: An odd configuration need...

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

| At 10:32 AM 5/3/2004, you wrote:
| >On Sat, 1 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| >
| >| I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
| >| chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
| >| work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
| >| 1.3 alpha.
| >
| >Frustrating? Hell yes: TRACE level!!
|
| You perpetual whining does not help project move forward. Please stop.

Did you read the rest of my mail, or did you just blank out after this
one line?

About the trace-mentioning up here: it wasn't really meant for anything
but pointing out that "yes, there are features there that could do with a
1.3 release sooner than later". I'm slightly weirded out with your
totalitarian, dictatorian, angry handling of the trace issue.
  I've submitted the patch - you said that the vote regarding the issue
went in favor of adding the feature - why haven't there been any moves
regarding the patch, at all, then?

E.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lutz Michael | 3 May 2004 15:43
Picon

RE: An odd configuration need...


Hey guys, would you please have this conversation on the developer list?

Ceki thanks for all the work you do, personally I don't care if you have a
strong leadership style.  I greatly appreciate Log4j and all the work you
and your team accomplishes.  Thanks for all you do.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Endre Stølsvik [mailto:Endre <at> Stolsvik.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:34 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: An odd configuration need...

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

| At 10:32 AM 5/3/2004, you wrote:
| >On Sat, 1 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| >
| >| I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
| >| chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
| >| work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
| >| 1.3 alpha.
| >
| >Frustrating? Hell yes: TRACE level!!
|
| You perpetual whining does not help project move forward. Please stop.

Did you read the rest of my mail, or did you just blank out after this
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ceki Gülcü | 3 May 2004 16:17
Picon
Gravatar

RE: An odd configuration need...

At 03:34 PM 5/3/2004, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>On Mon, 3 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>| At 10:32 AM 5/3/2004, you wrote:
>| >On Sat, 1 May 2004, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>| >
>| >| I am aware of the fact that this may be frustrating, especially if the
>| >| chainsaw part is nearing readiness for prime time. I'd like to finish
>| >| work on DBAppedner (3-4 days) and Joran (2-3 days) before releasing
>| >| 1.3 alpha.
>| >
>| >Frustrating? Hell yes: TRACE level!!
>|
>| You perpetual whining does not help project move forward. Please stop.
>
>Did you read the rest of my mail, or did you just blank out after this
>one line?
>
>About the trace-mentioning up here: it wasn't really meant for anything
>but pointing out that "yes, there are features there that could do with a
>1.3 release sooner than later". I'm slightly weirded out with your
>totalitarian, dictatorian, angry handling of the trace issue.

and I am upset by your incessant complaints and self-centered perception of 
what this project should do. We really have better things to do than listen 
to your whining. This has been going on for a long time now.

>   I've submitted the patch - you said that the vote regarding the issue
>went in favor of adding the feature - why haven't there been any moves
>regarding the patch, at all, then?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ceki Gülcü | 3 May 2004 16:20
Picon
Gravatar

RE: An odd configuration need...

At 03:43 PM 5/3/2004, Lutz Michael wrote:

>Hey guys, would you please have this conversation on the developer list?
>
>Ceki thanks for all the work you do, personally I don't care if you have a
>strong leadership style.  I greatly appreciate Log4j and all the work you
>and your team accomplishes.  Thanks for all you do.

Thank you for the kind words. I don't have a strong leadership style 
although I can get fed up like any other person.

>Mike

--

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sullivan, Sean C - MWT | 3 May 2004 18:10

RE: How Do I Find Out If log4j Has Been Configured?


+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:Paul.Smith <at> lawlex.com.au]
> 
> What would be nice is to have the warning message about "no appenders
> configured" should contain a URL to point to a web page with more
> information about what this statement means, so that those not
familiar
> with
> it (and perhaps log4j) have a point of reference .
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jean-Baptiste Onofré | 3 May 2004 18:26

Logging reporting tool

Hello all,

I'm looking for a tool to analyse logging generated with log4j and/or by
jakarta commons logging.

The purpose is to generate audit like :
- the time taken by a process
- logging and serialize transactions in a multi-threaded context
- etc

I first step, the log file can respect a valid format for tool, but in
final release, the purpose is a adaptative tool for heterogeous logging
format.

Is this kind of tool exists ? If not, is there people interested to work
with me on this tool ? Is this tool can be a Jakarta Apacha project ?

Best regards
--

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (Nanthrax)
Membre fondateur de phpFR.org
http://www.phpfr.org
jbonofre <at> phpfr.org
Membre fondateur du LUG Béziers
http://www.lug-beziers.org
jbonofre <at> lug-beziers.org
PGP : 17D4F086
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane