Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9059 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 23:08:31 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 23:08:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 88804 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2004 23:08:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 88774 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2004 23:08:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 88750 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 23:08:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ike.local.anstat.com.au) (202.92.123.11) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 23:08:14 -0000 Received: from [192.168.222.57] (dhcp-57.local.anstat.com.au [192.168.222.57]) by ike.local.anstat.com.au with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id D6WVN68L; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:08:17 +1100 Subject: Re: org.apache.log4j.net.SMTPAppender does not have an SMTPPort option From: Paul Smith To: Log4J Developers List In-Reply-To: <450F32F0-5C1A-11D8-B131-000393DB7722@northwestern.edu> References: <450F32F0-5C1A-11D8-B131-000393DB7722@northwestern.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1076454497.3851.52.camel@dhcp-57.local.anstat.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:08:17 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 09:41, Moses Hohman wrote: > Hi, > > Providing the ability to use a nonstandard port with SMTPAppender is > useful for unit testing. I have attached a patch that provides this > option. Could this be considered for incorporation into log4j? This is a good idea. Does anyone have a preference for the actual property name? (eg. SMTPPort vs. Port). All the other Socket-based appenders use Port I believe, and there might be some value in keeping it standard. But otherwise I think it's a good addition to 1.3. cheers, Paul Smith --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org