logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Marking org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender and DRFA as deprecated?
Date Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:16:34 GMT
Is it possible to use the new implementation and provide the same extension
points that the old implementation provided?


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:

> On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>  I think the rolling file appenders are some of the most commonly used
>> appenders.  If you require folks to configure two jars instead of one in
>> their classpath for one of the most common uses of log4j, it's a step
>> backward in my opinion.
>> Ideally, we could change the existing RFA and DRFA to delegate to the new
>> RFAs (if they were in the same jar).
>> Is that possible?
>> Scott
> @deprecate is too strong, I just meant to add wording to indicate that
> there are known problems that are difficult to address and that users should
> consider the org.apache.log4j.rolling.RFA, some of the third-party RFA's and
> hopefully eventually a .nio. based channel appender based on the
> MultiFileAppender work.
> log4j 1.3 implemented o.a.l.RFA and DRFA as delegates to o.a.l.r.RFA.  They
> configured identically, however the extension points were different, so if
> you had extended DRFA in log4j 1.2, your extension would not work properly
> in log4j 1.3.
> To insure compatibility with apps that extended o.a.l.RFA and DRFA, we have
> to thread very carefully not to disrupt those users that have worked around
> the issues or have extended the behavior.  However, if you were starting
> new, they have really should start with something else.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message