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


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmai...> wrote:

> I hope will manage to keep it alive.  Despite all the bugs, it is a very
> usefull appender that are very often used.
>
> By the way, if you prepare 1.2.16, it would be nice to have the pacth of
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47350 included.
>
> Gilles Scokart
>
>
> 2009/8/5 Curt Arnold <carnold@apac...>
>
> I'm planning on spending a few hours each night on log4j to finally cut a
>> log4j 1.2.16.
>>
>> There are a decent number of bugs regarding
>> org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender or
>> org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender.  I'll look at the bug reports and
>> see if there are any simple, low-risk fixes, but not sure that there will
>> be.  org.apache.log4j.rolling.RollingFileAppender has some problems, but not
>> as many as the org.apache.log4j RFA's.
>>
>> Is it time to mark org.apache.log4j.RFA and DRFA as deprecated and suggest
>> that users migrate to the RFA's in the extras companion?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logg...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logg...
>>
>>
>