logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Gabor <r...@p-cube.com>
Subject RE: JDK 1.1.8 compatibility of Log4j 1.1.3 RollingFilesAppender
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:00:58 GMT


Thanks for the quick reply.

The reason I'm using JDK 1.1.8 is because I'm developing a client server
application, in which the server part may sometimes run on embedded
applications that support PJava2 (Personal Java). PJava 2 is actually based
on JDK1.1.8 + the fine grained security of JDK 1.2. Log4j has been found to
be perfect for our needs (except a minor issue regarding ThrowableInfo,
which I have also worked around...).

Please note that most embedded JVM's (for example for OS such as VxWorks)
support JDK1.1.8 or PJava2, they seldom support JDK1.2 or later.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:ceki@qos.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:02 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: JDK 1.1.8 compatibility of Log4j 1.1.3 RollingFilesAppender


At 20:51 11.12.2001 +0200, you wrote:

>It seems that the RollingFilesAppender is incompatible with JDK1.1.8. This
>is because its BeanInfo class uses a method that doesn't exist in JDK1.1.8
>(getBeanInfo(Class, int)).
>Is anyone aware of this?

Yes. It is even documented in the log4j FAQ which ships with log4j 1.1.3:

What are the prerequisites for log4j?

- Log4j is JDK 1.1.x compatible. 

- Nevertheless, RollingFileAppender requires JDK 1.2 or above. This will be
fixed in future releases of log4j. If you need RollingFileAppender to run
under JDK 1.1 then you can simply remove RollingFileAppenderBeanInfo.class
from log4j.jar. 

Unfortunately, the FAQ which is on the jakarta-site does not reflect this
information. (It's a documentation bug.)

>Is it going to be fixed?

Yes and no. RollingFileAppenderBeanInfo is no longer needed but log4j 1.2 is
likely to require JDK 1.2.

Out of curiosity, how come you are still using JDK 1.1.x? Regards, Ceki

>Is this mailing list the correct place to discuss/report such matters (I'm
>new to log4j)?
>The simple solution (more of a work around) I currently have is to remove
>the RollingFilesAppenderBeanInfo implementation (its content, leaving an
>empty class), and then the standard MBean introspection would be used. This
>will prevent the use of setting file size from property files using 100KB
>(or any other string) but would leave the option of setting using numeric
>value (1000000 for ~100K) valid.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message