Question ad commons logging/log4j and packaging BSF ...

["Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>]

Hi there,

just checked out the latest version of BSF in order to apply the changes 
I posted a month ago for comments. It seems that the logging got changed 
in the past to use commons Log and LogFactory (and removed 
bsf/util/DebugLog), which is fine with me.

The question would be as follows: if creating a BSF distribution what 
jar-files should be available/packaged in order for BSF to work orderly 
in case of an error (when the log entries get created): the "logging" 
package alone or also "log4j"? And if so, does anyone happen to know 
whether it is possible to place those jars into the Java "ext" 
(extension) directory, which means that these classes must not use any 
other classes other than Java's base classes and whatever is in the 
"ext" directory?

TIA for any insights,

---rony



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

About to commit... (Re: Question ad commons logging/log4j and packaging BSF ...

["Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>]

Hi Ulf,
> The logging package should be sufficient, I think. It falls back to 
> System.err if neither log4j nor java.util.logging is present.
thank you for this hint!

Would plan to check in my changes in two steps:

   1. Apply the patches to correct the dynamic creation of event
      adapters, adding an addEventListenerReturningEventInfos (to
      EngineUtils.java), adding specific code for getting at
      OpenOffice.org events (for OOo versions <= 2.0.2); did post the
      respective diffs a month ago for comments.
   2. Apply a patch which removes the specific OOo event handling code,
      as starting with the next version OOo will tag its EventAdapters
      according to the Java standard, thereby allowing BSF to get at its
      events as well.

The reason for these two steps is, that this way the specific OOo 
supporting code is in the repository for people who might want to use 
that for their environments. OTOH the base BSF package would not contain 
any single-product specific code (should be a generic framework).

Regards,

---rony

P.S.: Who would be able to manage/update the WWW-site presence of the 
bsf-project (and also a current build of BSF)?

E.g. at <http://jakarta.apache.org/bsf/> one cannot find any infos on 
Jython yet, although the edits were incorporated (somewhere)? I would 
like to add infos on ooRexx/BSF4Rexx, that should be reflected on the 
WWW as well.

Re: Question ad commons logging/log4j and packaging BSF ...

[Ulf Dittmer <ul...@ulfdittmer.com>]

Hi-

The logging package should be sufficient, I think. It falls back to 
System.err if neither log4j nor java.util.logging is present.

Cheers,
Ulf

On 26.03.2006, at 17:42, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> just checked out the latest version of BSF in order to apply the 
> changes I posted a month ago for comments. It seems that the logging 
> got changed in the past to use commons Log and LogFactory (and removed 
> bsf/util/DebugLog), which is fine with me.
>
> The question would be as follows: if creating a BSF distribution what 
> jar-files should be available/packaged in order for BSF to work 
> orderly in case of an error (when the log entries get created): the 
> "logging" package alone or also "log4j"? And if so, does anyone happen 
> to know whether it is possible to place those jars into the Java "ext" 
> (extension) directory, which means that these classes must not use any 
> other classes other than Java's base classes and whatever is in the 
> "ext" directory?


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