commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Kjome <>
Subject Re: [logging] log4j 1.3 support
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:59:12 GMT

Can the problem be restated?  Seems like this email catches the end of a 
conversation.  What is the issue at hand?

As for TRACE, that is new to Log4j-1.2.12 and didn't exist in versions 
previous to it.  If it doesn't exist in a 1.3 alpha binary release yet, it 
will.  There are plans to get a new 1.3 alpha build out soon.  There's been 
a lot of work done in the source to make 1.3 more compatible with 1.2, 
which wasn't the plan early on in 1.3's development.  But now the thought 
is try to keep 1.3 as compatible with 1.2 as possible.  If you are worried 
that the current alpha is incompatible with the 1.2.xx branch, please try 
building Log4j-1.3 from source and then compile against that.  That will 
provide a much better test of JCL 1.2.xx and 1.3 compatibility.


At 10:47 PM 10/9/2005 +0200, you wrote:
 >This mail was signed (Inlined PGP-Message).
 >,-----GnuPG output follows (current time: Sun, Oct 09 2005 - 22:35:32)--
 >|     Signature made 10/09/05 15:47:15 using DSA key ID 60DCBFFF
 >|     Can't check signature: public key not found
 >Hash: SHA1
 >Hello world!
 >Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
 >> Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
 >>>>Jörg Schaible wrote:
 >>>>>>Simon Kitching wrote:
 >>>>Hi there,
 >> Hi again,
 >>>>I can not see all your guyz problems. I replaced Priority with Level and
 >>>>the "isAsignableFrom" section and everyting works and compiles fine. Even
 >>>>TRACE is defined in Level and Priority so there is not even reflection 
 >>>>Am I missing something??? Maybe I should get the 1.3 alpha release and
 >have a
 >>>>look if I can find the problem Simon was talking about...
 >>>>The tests all worked excellent with 1.2.12 and Log4j12Logger works 
fine with
 >>>>prior versions. And as I said that is how the log4j guyz told to do it a
 >>>>time ago. I did not check this with log4j versions prior than 1.2.6. But
 >as I
 >>>>pointed out earlier, the Log4J12Logger is using the log4j type "Logger"
 >>>>and that came together with the type "Level".
 >>>>Maybe we do not even need two Log4j Loggers - what do you think?
 >> Is it if you compile the jcl againts log4j 1.2 and then run it with 1.3
 >and vice
 >> versa? Maybe that is the point I did not think about earlier...
 >> I will check when I find the time.
 >Exactly this is the point. This issue really hurts. Has someone already 
 >this out on the log4j mailing list. I am not sure if they see this issue so
 >clearly, do they?
 >In the end I have to agree that there is no clean and easy way to support 
 >log4j 1.2 and 1.3 in one logger. There is a way though, but nobody will want
 >Additionally the Log4J12Logger has to be compiled against log4j-1.2 and
 >Log4J13Logger has to be compiled againts log4j-1.3 but both go to the 
same jar.
 >This issue could not even be handled with m2 (maven2).
 >>>>>>- Jörg
 >>>>  Jörg
 >> Jörg
 >and me again ;)
 >Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
 >Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
 >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
 >For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message