Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 68730 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2002 20:38:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 2002 20:38:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 16258 invoked by uid 97); 14 Oct 2002 20:38:38 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16136 invoked by uid 97); 14 Oct 2002 20:38:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16120 invoked by uid 98); 14 Oct 2002 20:38:36 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014222949.027c6298@mail.qos.ch> X-Sender: ceki@mail.qos.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:37:40 +0200 To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= Subject: RE: [joran] example (was Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?) In-Reply-To: <458473676F1AC74A84EAB2F22004DA6D5312E9@mail.nextance.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Property 0 says that parsing of appender tags are driven by logger tags. For example, the following config script does nothing. In particular, the CONSOLE appender is not created because no logger references it. Property 0 requires the XML processor to access elements that have been already defined. With Digester which is SAX based, there is no way for a rule to trigger parsing of an element that was already parsed by the SAX parser. In other words, using SAX you cannot access elements backwards or forwards. You only have access to the current element. Please correct me if I am wrong. At 13:18 14.10.2002 -0700, you wrote: >Can you explain the property 0 thing a little more? I don't understand=20 >why Digester cannot handle it. > >Thanks, >Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ceki G=FClc=FC [mailto:ceki@qos.ch] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:07 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [joran] example (was Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make > > Jelly a required dependency?) > > > > > > > > Here is a sample log4j config file in XML: > > > > > > > > > > > xmlns:log4j=3D'http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/'> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The noteworthy point is that the appender element is used > > only if root or a logger element references it. For example, > > the UNUSED appender, which is not referenced by any root or > > logger element, will not be created nor configured. I call > > this the 0th Property. > > > > Property 0: It's the root or loggers elements which "drive" > > the appender elements. > > > > Another interesting point is that different appender elements > > may have different nested elements which must be evaluated > > differently. For example, > > > > > > > > > > > > <--- trigger is a > > special tag > > > > > > > > > > is an SMTPAppender specific tag. > > > > Another example, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <-- special tag > > > > > > > > <-- special tag > > > > > > > > > > > > in the above example and > > are RollingAppender specific tags. > > > > Log4j could support such tags using the addXXX paradigm that > > Ant uses for its tasks. > > > > The remaining desired properties are > > > > 1) low redundancy in the processing code > > > > 2) ability to parse totally unknown tags that are *not* > > nested within primary level tasks, e.g. , , > > tags. > > > > I think that a rule based system such as Digester can take > > care of properties 1 and 2 but not property 0 defined above. > > Can jelly? > > > > BTW, am I making any sense? > > > > At 17:00 14.10.2002 +0100, James Strachan wrote: > > >From: "Ceki G=FClc=FC" > > > >> Have you any examples of what joran > > > >>might look like yet? > > > > > > > > No, I do not have examples, except in my head. > > > > > >Any chance you could type a snippet of an example thats in your head > > >down in an email; I'm interested to hear what you were thinking of. > > > > > > > Moreover, one wonders at the > > > > sanity of the Joran enterprise when a library like Jelly > > is already > > > > available. > > > > > >Jelly can be molded into many shapes via libraries so maybe > > Jelly could > > >implement Joran; however thats purely an implementation detail. Lets > > >ponder a little on what Joran could look like to an end user first > > >before worrying about such details. > > > > > >James > > >------- > > >http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098 > > > > -- > > Ceki > > > > TCP implementations will follow a general principle of > > robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in > > what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: > > > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: = >For additional commands, e-mail:= -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: