logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shapira, Yoav" <Yoav.Shap...@mpi.com>
Subject RE: Log4J v 1.3 and v 2.0
Date Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:06:41 GMT


>Now, where is the 1.3 codebase effort?  And is there any effort started
>proper v 2.0, where we can make the IoC a reality??

The 1.3 codebase effort is in the CVS HEAD of the logging-log4j module.
Work has not started on 2.0 or the release beyond 1.3.

>Currently, one bad symptom of non-IoC is that we haven't figured out
how to

So the world is divided into IoC and non-IoC? ;)

>install appenders into a running instance of Log4J, where the appender
>depending on an external Jar which was is not part of the Log4J
>And since all running classes holds references to the entire Log4J jar,
>not possible to drop the Log4J subsystem either.
>Anyone got takes on this particular use-case?

Well, the generic way to add an appender is fairly simple,
Logger#addAppender(Appender).  I've done this at runtime many times,
including Appenders that were in external JARs, although those JARs were
always in the same classloader as log4j.  (My typical use case is both
log4j and my additions in the WEB-INF/lib directory of a webapp).  Your
specific use-case I haven't tried, so I can't comment much on it.

As for dropping the entire log4j subsystem: I haven't tried that either.
Although LogManager#shutdown works actively, it by itself obviously
doesn't unload any classes or the log4j jar.  That'd be a container

One that I'd advise against, because why would you ever want to remove
logging from your webapp?  One of the basic premises of log4j is that
logging is an essential basic feature of any application, one that
should always be used (judiciously).  The use-case of removing the
logging subsystem of a running application is one that right now (it's
early morning here) doesn't make much sense to me.  

By the way, in m years on the log4j-user and other mailing lists, I've
never seen a single request for either of your use-cases.  So I'm
curious as to what makes you think they're needed?  They might be nice
to have, but not at the price of breaking backwards-compatibility.


This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may
contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged.  This e-mail is intended
only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed,
disclosed or used by anyone else.  If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately
delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender.  Thank you.

View raw message