The Log4Net mailing list is a great source of information about using log4Net, in this forum we collect all the messages in the log4net user list and some selected threads from the developer list.
| Author |
Messages |
|
Yaojian
 |
| 04/02/2009 4:33 PM |
|
Hi
anyone know that?
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Drier
 |
| 04/02/2009 5:20 PM |
|
Maybe when someone comes up with a legit feature need that it doesn't already cover?
Seriously though, I've been using 1.2.10 for years now and log4net has been the most reliable 3rd party package I've used across many applications. The only things I've needed that it couldn't do fit easily in the appender and plugin frameworks.
Don't fix what isn't broken!
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
daniel.nitecki@o-i.com
 |
| 04/02/2009 5:27 PM |
|
Has anyone made efforts to add the Mutex file locking scheme for file appenders into the source? Someone posted code for it a while ago and I've been making use of it. This could be worthy of a minor rev...
|
|
|
|
|
Yaojian
 |
| 04/02/2009 5:35 PM |
|
I am totally agree with the reliable of log4net.
I just want a bug-fix version, espically the UdpAppender issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-112
As lots of third-party components (for example, NHibernate) rely on log4net's public GA 1.2.10, I have to rebuild all these third-party components with my private build from the log4net svn :-(
|
|
|
|
|
steven higgan
 |
| 04/03/2009 11:29 AM |
|
are you serious ??
i wold have thought the brokenness of the udp appender and the patch that is available would have been enough to push out a new release.
sure i _can_ patch it myself but in my corporate environment and a requirement to only use official releases for clients means that I simply cant.
doing a quick diff between trunk @ head and the last release we can see that a lot of files have been changed, doing a quick log we can see that there are approximately three years worth of new features and bug fixes, and to be honest if the churn is substantial enough the shear volume of changes may mean real-world usage may turn up all sorts of interesting stuff happening.
on the upside it compiles in VS2008 (dont have 2k5 installed), but at least on my server 2k8 laptop with uac and visual studio running as a normal user I get test failures (security exceptions) and two other failures which look more intresting (log4net.Tests.Util.LogLogTest.EmitInternalMessages() in LogLogTest.cs: line 33 & log4net.Tests.Util.LogLogTest.LogReceivedAdapter() in LogLogTest.cs: line 54)
what will it take to get a release out the door ?
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Drier
 |
| 04/04/2009 8:23 PM |
|
So the last time log4net upgraded from .9 to .10, that process was actually somewhat painful for me.. as you note a lot of components rely on log4net .10.. And dealing with different versions of log4net simultaneously wasn't fun (we weren't allowed to gac it for various reasons, nor do you want 2 copies of log4net loaded into a single process anyways).
Now, given that most to all of the updates/bug fixes are in the appenders, it may make sense to split log4net into 2 packages.. one that's the core log4net bits + appender skeleton + interfaces.. and one that's the bundled appenders..
That way, the third party packages (nunit, nhibernate, ...) can depend on the core log4net bits without having to upgrade every time Nicko does a appender bug fix..
This may even be enough to warrant a 1.3 ?
Nicko?
-Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Walden H. Leverich
 |
| 04/06/2009 4:15 PM |
|
I forget, is the "official" release strongly named? And if so, did those other components reference it by strong name? I tend to hate strong naming! It's a logging component, if there's an upgrade I should be able to use it, why should I be tied to an older version just because you built against the older version?
-Walden
--
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x3051
WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com
http://www.TechSoftInc.com
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Haughton
 |
| 04/06/2009 4:27 PM |
|
Because if you don’t, surely you risk breaking existing applications when you upgrade log4net?
Regards,
Neil Haughton BSc MIET IEng(CEI) Development Manager
Autoscribe Limited Wellington House Riseley Business Park Basingstoke Road, Riseley Berkshire RG7 1NW
Office: +44 (0) 118 984 0610 Fax: +44 (0) 118 984 0611
Visit our website at: www.autoscribe.co.uk
Registered in Wales No: 1539748
**********************************************************DISCLAIMER*****************************************************
The contents of this email are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error then please accept our apology. If this is the case we would be obliged if you would contact the sender and then delete this email. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Autoscribe Ltd. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus no responsibility is accepted by Autoscribe Ltd for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. *********************************************************************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
Walden H. Leverich
 |
| 04/06/2009 4:42 PM |
|
> Because if you don’t, surely you risk breaking existing applications when you upgrade log4net?
You might. But that's a decision and assessment that I can make when I choose to do the upgrade. I can (somewhat) see the point on two DLLs (or DLL and EXE) that are part of the same package. Say the GUI front-end .exe and the business logic implementation .dll. But for a utility like log4net strong naming just doesn't make sense to me.
-Walden
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Tamman
 |
| 04/06/2009 4:48 PM |
|
Wouldn't they use the same private key across upgrades? I would assume they would. The strong naming afaik is to ensure that people can't create "unoffial" releases with the claim that they're official releases. I figured it was for legal and integrity reasons.
Simon |
|
|
|
|
daniel.nitecki@o-i.com
 |
| 04/06/2009 4:50 PM |
|
A strong name includes the version number as well as the key. Strong naming is also required for installation in to the GAC, which I find useful for utilities such as loggers.
2 cents,
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Walden H. Leverich
 |
| 04/06/2009 5:27 PM |
|
> A strong name includes the version number as well as the key.
And that's the problem. Any change that results in a new version # (even a trivial build # jump) means you need to fix the references. I actually find the GAC not very useful. Sure, core .NET files should be there, but I can drop the log4net DLL in my bin directory just as easily. The nice thing about the GAC is that you could drop an "upgrade" there and everything would get the advantage of the upgrade, however, because the version # is part of the strong name you'd have to visit everything anyway to tweak the .config files. Just simpler to drop log4net.dll where I need it.
Perhaps there should be two "official" releases, one signed one not. Then for companies that require "official AND signed" there's a solution, but for companies that simply require "official" there's also a solution. Of course that would require that 3rd party tools build w/out requiring a specific version to be of any use.
-Walden
-- Walden H Leverich III Tech Software (516) 627-3800 x3051 WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com http://www.TechSoftInc.com
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Haughton
 |
| 04/06/2009 5:32 PM |
|
Sounds like a good compromise. Strong naming can be a real PIA if you don't actually want the "benefits" it brings.
Regards, Neil Haughton BSc MIET IEng(CEI) Development Manager Autoscribe Limited Wellington House Riseley Business Park Basingstoke Road, Riseley Berkshire RG7 1NW Office: +44 (0) 118 984 0610 Fax: +44 (0) 118 984 0611 Visit our website at: www.autoscribe.co.uk Registered in Wales No: 1539748 **********************************************************DISCLAIMER***************************************************** The contents of this email are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error then please accept our apology. If this is the case we would be obliged if you would contact the sender and then delete this email. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Autoscribe Ltd. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus no responsibility is accepted by Autoscribe Ltd for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. *********************************************************************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne Bradney
 |
| 04/06/2009 5:48 PM |
|
You know you've been working too long when it takes a minute or so to realize that the intent of "PIA" was "pain in the ass" rather than "Primary Interop Assembly"...
Wayne M. Bradney Chief Application Architect, Derivatives & Structured Products
Wall Street Systems, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10104 Phone: +1 212 809 7200 Direct Dial: +1 212 401 8239
Email: wayne.bradney@wallstreetsystems.com Web: www.wallstreetsystems.com
Wall Street Systems – Empowering Treasury, Trading and Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|