You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-user@logging.apache.org by ra...@gmx.de on 2001/02/15 17:20:48 UTC
RE: Related to Some questions
> That's a reasonable demand. There is a difference between finding the
> configuration file and properly parsing it. The desired semantics is to
see if
> config file was found and correctly parsed not just found. This requires
> that the configurators need to throw exceptions in case of parsing errors
> which is not the case today.
I have posted a patch recently to cope with that problem but never got any
reply. Did it not make it to the list or was it so bad that nobody cared to
even comment on it?
--
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Dipl.-Inform. E-Mail: rainer.klute@epost.de
Rainer Klute Tel.: (0172) 2324824
K�rner Grund 24 (0231) 511693
D-44143 Dortmund Fax: (0231) 511809
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
RE: Related to Some questions
Posted by ra...@gmx.de.
> Unless I am missing something, there is a lot more to this than throwing
> an exception when the config file is not found. Most notable, throwing
> exceptions in a method that hid them previously breaks backward
compatibility.
That's right. That's the price to pay.
You have to decide what you value more: Compatibility or ability - being
backward compatible or being able to learn of any problem configuring log4j.
In my application I try to configure the patched (enhanced) log4j with a
DOMConfigurator first, and if that fails I use a BasicConfigurator with some
more or less reasonable defaults. Works well!
> On the other hand you are right to insist. :-) Ceki
:-)
--
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Dipl.-Inform. E-Mail: rainer.klute@epost.de
Rainer Klute Tel.: (0172) 2324824
K�rner Grund 24 (0231) 511693
D-44143 Dortmund Fax: (0231) 511809
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
RE: Related to Some questions
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <cg...@qos.ch>.
At 17:20 15.02.2001 +0100, you wrote:
>> That's a reasonable demand. There is a difference between finding the
>> configuration file and properly parsing it. The desired semantics is to
>see if
>> config file was found and correctly parsed not just found. This requires
>> that the configurators need to throw exceptions in case of parsing errors
>> which is not the case today.
>
>I have posted a patch recently to cope with that problem but never got any
>reply. Did it not make it to the list or was it so bad that nobody cared to
>even comment on it?
Unless I am missing something, there is a lot more to this than throwing an exception when the config file is not found. Most notable, throwing exceptions in a method that hid them previously breaks backward compatibility. On the other hand you are right to insist. :-) Ceki
>--
>Best regards
>Rainer Klute
>
> Dipl.-Inform. E-Mail: rainer.klute@epost.de
> Rainer Klute Tel.: (0172) 2324824
> Körner Grund 24 (0231) 511693
>D-44143 Dortmund Fax: (0231) 511809
>
>Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
----
Ceki Gülcü e-mail: cgu@qos.ch (preferred)
av. de Rumine 5 ceki_gulcu@yahoo.com
CH-1005 Lausanne
Switzerland Tel: ++41 21 351 23 15