You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Brian Stansberry <be...@yahoo.com> on 2005/03/03 06:34:50 UTC
Re: [logging] discovery error handling
--- robert burrell donkin
<ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> that all depends on what is meant by fix :)
> and on what is meant by soon :)
>
> anyone (brian or dennis, maybe?) want to volunteer
> to take a look into
> improving classloading for the 1.0.x development
> stream?
>
I got some time to look into this and thought I'd
start by going through the test cases Ceki G�lc�
published (thanks Ceki). What I found was that 1) JCL
1.05RC1 goes a long way toward resolving the issues
Ceki raised, and 2) providing a
"commons-logging-impl.jar" (i.e. the
commons-logging.jar classes not included in
commons-logging-api.jar) for use in child deployments
would resolve most of the rest.
What I've found is documented at
http://xnet.wanconcepts.com/jcl/furtherAnalysis.html.
I know there has been a lot of discussion on this list
of these issues, far more than I have had a chance to
digest fully, so I apologize if I'm stating the
obvious or missing the obvious. But, in any case I
thought others might find it useful to have the
relevant issues summarized in one document; I know I
found Ceki's document very helpful.
If anyone has any comments or suggestions, they would
be most welcome.
Best regards,
Brian
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [logging] discovery error handling
Posted by robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 05:34, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> --- robert burrell donkin
> <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> I know there has been a lot of discussion on this list
> of these issues, far more than I have had a chance to
> digest fully, so I apologize if I'm stating the
> obvious or missing the obvious.
very little to do with JCL is obvious :)
one of the problems is that richard and i come with JCL with our own
preconceptions. we've also talked these issues through in the past. so
> But, in any case I
> thought others might find it useful to have the
> relevant issues summarized in one document; I know I
> found Ceki's document very helpful.
thanks
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [logging] distribution packaging
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 07:35, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> --- robert burrell donkin
> <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > i'd definitely be willing
> > to review patches if someone wants to volunteer to
> > alter the build,
> > create some good test cases and write up some
> > documentation.
>
> I'd be happy to take that on if a consensus is reached
> that repackaging is the way to go.
i think that repackaging might be the way to go for the future of the
1.0.x series of JCL releases. i also think that anything that can
improve this series is definitely worth doing. it has the great
advantage of being fully compatible.
opinions anyone?
> Might take me a
> bit of time though, as I'm fairly swamped.
understood :)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [logging] distribution packaging
Posted by Brian Stansberry <be...@yahoo.com>.
--- robert burrell donkin
<ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> (new thread on packaging)
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 05:34, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> > What I've found is documented at
> >
> >
http://xnet.wanconcepts.com/jcl/furtherAnalysis.html.
>
>
> we need to take a longer look into repackaging. i
> didn't expect that
> altering the distributions would work so well.
I was a little surprised myself, which is why I wanted
to follow Ceki's good example and publish test cases
that could easily be verified (or debunked) by others.
> i'd definitely be willing
> to review patches if someone wants to volunteer to
> alter the build,
> create some good test cases and write up some
> documentation.
I'd be happy to take that on if a consensus is reached
that repackaging is the way to go. Might take me a
bit of time though, as I'm fairly swamped.
> i'd always suspected that static binding was the
> only solution for
> several difficult cases (but using byte code
> engineering rather than
> selective compilation as used in UGLI). the sticking
> point for this (and
> many other cases i'd like to be able to address) is
> that LogFactory is
> too complex and too tightly coupled to a container
> environment.
Yep, all the tests cases basically simulate different
types of containers. But hopefully we're close to
getting the container use cases clean.
Brian
>
> - robert
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[logging] distribution packaging [WAS Re: [logging] discovery
error handling]
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
(new thread on packaging)
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 05:34, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> --- robert burrell donkin
> <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> What I've found is documented at
> http://xnet.wanconcepts.com/jcl/furtherAnalysis.html.
we need to take a longer look into repackaging. i didn't expect that
altering the distributions would work so well. i'd definitely be willing
to review patches if someone wants to volunteer to alter the build,
create some good test cases and write up some documentation.
i'd always suspected that static binding was the only solution for
several difficult cases (but using byte code engineering rather than
selective compilation as used in UGLI). the sticking point for this (and
many other cases i'd like to be able to address) is that LogFactory is
too complex and too tightly coupled to a container environment.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org