Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030330160256.N10076@icarus.apache.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [logging] Moving Towards A 1.0.3 Release
From: Richard Sitze <rsitze@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: 
 <OF1AB38B46.CCFE5D57-ON86256CFB.004F8340-86256CFB.004FB102@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:30:43 -0600
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_alternative 004FB00686256CFB_="

--=_alternative 004FB00686256CFB_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Summary: +1 on all issues

> Folks,
> 
> A lot of people are interested in an updated release of commons-logging
> that incorporates post-1.0.2 bugfixes.  In order to do so, we need to
> address the following outstanding bug reports -- I've described my own
> recommendations on dealing with them in indented paragraphs marked
> "CRM>>>" -- we need to come to consensus on the actions to take and them
> implement them in order to reach a 1.0.3 release quickly:
> 
> 
> 13201 Remove default log4j configuration
> 
>       CRM>>> I agree.  The code in Log4JLogger.initialize() violates
>       the basic scope of commons-logging, which states  "The basic
>       principle is that the user is totally responsible for the
>       configuration of the underlying logging system.  Commons-logging
>       whould not change the existing configuration."  As an alternative
>       to the application explicitly configuring things, logging
>       implementations should provide auto-configuration mechanisms
>       (for Log4J, that means recognizing the existence of the
>       "log4j.properties" resource and using it.)
> 
>       Similar code exists in the deprecated Log4JCategoryLogger class,
>       and should be removed from there as well.

+1

> 
> 
> 16880 Language specs violation in Commons Logging 1.0.2 in class
>       LogFactoryImpl
> 
>       CRM>>> I haven't investigated this one yet, but we'll want to
>       make sure we do not introduce any security-related vulnerabilities
>       in dealing with it.

+1

> 
> 
> 17561 LogFactoryImpl.guessConfig overrides configuration
> 
>       CRM>>> As the bug report points out, we currently mess up the
>       Log4J configuration even if you explicitly select SimpleLog.
>       Dealing with 13201 will fix part of that; as a further step I
>       would like to deprecate Log4jFactory and the way that it is
>       created as a proxy for the standard LogFactoryImpl.  It seems
>       to add zero value, and only obfuscates the code -- anything
>       specific that we need should be possible in the base class.
>       I'd like to see Log4jFactory removed in 1.1, because
>       LogFactoryImpl should be capable of doing everything.

+1

> 
> 
> 17894 Unable to configure commons-logging SimpleLog for a webapp
> 
>       Other than the part about getting the manifest created
>       correctly (which I've fixed), this *appears* to be a duplicate
>       of 17561.

Agreed.

> 
> What do you guys think on these issues?


*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze
IBM WebSphere WebServices Development
--=_alternative 004FB00686256CFB_=--