logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: 1.3 - A Line in the Sand
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:55:14 GMT
Paul Smith wrote:
> On 05/04/2007, at 6:51 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>> I didn't know about the MDC treatment -- I'll have to look into that.
>> Otherwise, I knew that #2 and #3 were covered by the existing 
>> Chainsaw.  I just didn't want to give up any of that to get #1 
>> covered -- and don't personally see any value in porting Chainsaw to 
>> logback to achieve #1 either.  The information (also news to me) that 
>> we're really close to being able to just have Chainsaw use log4j 
>> 1.2.x just solidifies that opinion -- though I'd be happy with 
>> Chainsaw based upon a stable 1.4.x log4j as well.  [We can debate 
>> whether we could have a stable log4j 1.3.x and use that -- but at 
>> this point it does not matter whether this is technically possible, 
>> the 1.3.x stream has enough of a troubled history that a new version 
>> # is really needed to clear the air if nothing else.]
> Jess, you can use Chainsaw to connect to applications using log4j1.2, 
> seriously.  I do it all the time.  The _only_ thing that I appear to 
> miss is that log4j1.2 binary serialization of LoggingEvents does not 
> currently ship all the MDC value, so while the event appears fine 
> inside Chainsaw, if you have juicy MDC values on an event, the MDC 
> bits just don't appear.  This is, to me, a feature I think log4j1.2 is 
> a must have because, really, IMHO, Context is what enterprise logging 
> is all about ("No Log Line is an Island").
I actually use Chainsaw with our 1.2.x applications.

Yes, I *sorely* miss the MDC handling.

I'd also like a clearer message about log4j 1.3.x.  My downstream 
customers will use Chainsaw, inevitably see log4j 1.3 alpha mentioned in 
the jar downloads and ask why they're using alpha software (i.e. where's 
the stable stuff) and/or why the rest of our product is using 1.2.x when 
1.3.x is available.  [Hopefully the same person does not ask both 
questions at the same time without seeing the contradiction.]

I also agree, however, that getting log4j 1.2.x to ship all the MDC 
values is more important.  I also find this a really big gap.
> Now, the argument that Chainsaw is built on top of an alpha release is 
> still sort of valid, but I think that's really a 'hidden' problem of 
> Chainsaw, rather than anything that is restricting a user.  To the end 
> user, they really shouldn't care as long as it works. 
It's not entirely hidden -- it's actually rather visible as part of the 
initial load.

Otherwise it's not much of a real problem, though -- the MDC gap is more 

Jess Holle

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message