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.
Not to mention all of our examples use category, not logger.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:hoju@visi.com]
Sent: Sun 9/18/2005 7:53 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: JoranConfigurator problems
At 11:28 PM 9/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>I've noticed two issues with an xml-based configuration that works fine with
>the 1.2.x jars but does not work using log4j 1.3x alpha jars:
>
>1. An appender that's defined but not referenced is still constructed and
>activateOptions is called (the IRC appender in the example below)
>
>2. Using a 'category' instead of 'logger' node prevents the configuration
>from being loaded with the following error (using a 'logger' node works
fine):
>Reported error: "no applicable action for <category>, current pattern is
>[/configuration/category]" at line 27 column 24
>Reported error: "no applicable action for <priority>, current pattern is
>[/configuration/category/priority]" at line 28 column 32
>Reported error: "no applicable action for <appender-ref>, current pattern is
>[/configuration/category/appender-ref]" at line 29 column 30
>
Isn't this an opportunity to get rid of <category> and <priority> once and
for all? In many cases, Logj4-1.2.xx XML config files have to be slightly
rewritten to work with the JoranConfigurator anyway. We've been saying not
to use these tags for a few years now. Time to dump them, not perpetuate them.
Jake
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
|