logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next release
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:35:10 GMT
Ok, the only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger
writing to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that
and think it worthy to go into the trunk, I'm pretty much on board with a
2.0 release (unless you think a short lived rc3 is in order).

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brouwer@gmail.com>

> Ok, this is starting to be simpler, as I'm sure you would all prefer. You
> can look at the branch LOG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the
> simplifications that I have made.
> 1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can decide if they
> want to do something with a status message in their log method.
> 2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to write to
> a file.
> 3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-api and into log4j-core,
> where we can probably get away with making more drastic changes to it in
> the future (so I can fix LOG4J-609)
> I have to check on the tests and stuff, but in general, I'm pretty happy
> with how small the impact is and in its ability to make a better solution
> for LOG4J-609 possible in the future.
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This actually makes me wonder why you can configure the status logger
>> from a configuration file. Shouldn't this just be a system property or
>> something?
>> On 13 July 2014 18:57, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brouwer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The listener can be removed, but nothing ever does. Right now it can
>>> never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level checking is
>>> cached in StatusLogger. If all you do is change the status level of the
>>> listener it has no effect on the cached value in StatusLogger. It may end
>>> up having no effect.
>>> This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my fix that I
>>> have been delinquent with.
>>> I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it makes sense in
>>> the next hour or two.
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> --
> Bruce Brouwer
> about.me/bruce.brouwer
> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me]
>    <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer>


Bruce Brouwer
[image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me]

View raw message