Is it possible to use the new implementation and provide the same extension
points that the old implementation provided?

Scott

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Curt Arnold <carnold@apac...> wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>
>  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
>>
>>
> @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 else.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logg...
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logg...
>
>