logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43619] - Simple proposal for pluggable sys-props resolvers
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:30:40 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43619>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43619





------- Additional Comments From lilianne_blaze@tlen.pl  2007-10-23 13:30 -------
Are you 100% positive?

I'm using the same patch right now with DOMConfigurator. In production
environment, no less.

The idea was that DOMConfigurator.subst(String) calls
DOMConfigurator.subst(String,Props), which calls
OptionConverter.substVars(String,Props), which in turn calls my
PropertyResolver.getInstance().resolveProperty(String,Props). As long as a
specific implementation of Configurator eventually calls
OptionConverter.substsVars, my
PropertyResolver.getInstance().resolveProperty(...) is called.

Yes, I know it can be accomplished easier by subclassing a XxxConfigurator, but
this way we can have any combination of XxxConfigurator and YyyPropertyResolver.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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


Mime
View raw message