logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>
Subject RE: JoranConfigurator problems
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:15:02 GMT

> I agree, but I'm worried about the fact that our user base would rightfully
> be ticked if we forced them to change something that didn't have to change:
> terminology vs. semantics.  We have a large user base using configs with this
> terminology - let's not make life difficult on them when we don't have to.

I think we can explain it nicely and clearly in prominent places (the short
manual, the release notes, the JavaDoc, etc.) and avoid annoying people.

> Not to mention all of our examples use category, not logger.

Same thing: we can amend those.  I'll gladly do that if we agree to finally
drop the old names.

Back to the main point of this thread: do we really need JoranConfigurator at
all?  I agree it can be modified to work with log4j 1.3, but I wonder if it's
necessary at all.  It has some advantages over the DOMConfigurator, sure, but
perhaps we can leave the Joran one out of the core, make it available
separately, and see how much demand there is?

Yoav (who is in anti-scope-creep, anti-feature-creep, anti-bloat mode this

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message