> 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?
@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