commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Jakarta-commons Wiki] Update of "Logging/1.1.0ReleasePlan" by DennisLundberg
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:21:13 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta-commons Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by DennisLundberg:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Logging/1%2e1%2e0ReleasePlan

The comment on the change is:
Summarized the discussions on the dev list regarding design decisions

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   * Bug 37484 ''[logging] call to getClassLoader() in Log``Factory``Impl not checked for
null''
     * Might have been solved already.
  
- == Bug Fix ==
+ == Bug Fixes ==
+ 
+ == Design decisions ==
+ 
+  * Do we remove the Servlet``Context``Cleaner?
+    1. It's obviously too controversial. Maybe the code could be put in the documentation
somewhere, or on the wiki.
+ 
+  * Decide whether to merge the weak-hash-map stuff into the main trunk or leave it in an
"optional" jar. If we merge it, we can do away with the optional jar completely which is good.
However it does mean that if there is a bug in it people can't disable it. If bundled in the
main jar there might need to be a little extra code to just ignore it when it throws an exception
on load for java < 1.3.
+ 
+  * Sort out whether we split Log4JLogger into two classes or not. If we choose two classes,
how should we name them?
+    1. Rename Log4``J12``Logger.java back to Log4JLogger.java. That would make the upgrade
transparent for the previous use-case. But there is the chance that this will not work at
all for a user that is currently using JCL 1.0.4 together with log4jalpha-something and a
configuration file stating that Log4JLogger should be used.
+    1. Users who configure JCL to use Log4JLogger might reasonably expect JCL to guess the
log4j version and use the correct logger. so, perhaps one option would be to create a delegating
implementation. 
+ 
+  * Decide our jar distribution strategy (in particular, whether we ship the optional jar
or not).
+ 
+  * How do we give downstream packagers and users a fair view of the actual JCL dependencies?
  
  == Test Compatibility ==
  
- Verify that trace level logging works correctly with Log4J 1.2.12+. ''DONE''
+ Verify that TRACE support works for Log4J 1.2.12+. ''DONE''
  
  == Release Notes ==
  

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


Mime
View raw message