Sanne for 3.6 cool, but be aware that we are redoing all of this ATM in
master
On 04/12/2011 06:15 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> 2011/4/13 Steve Ebersole:
>> On 04/12/2011 06:01 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>> This was my original implementation but it was changed to this explicit API
>>> with
2011/4/13 Steve Ebersole :
> On 04/12/2011 06:01 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> This was my original implementation but it was changed to this explicit API
>> with the reasoning
>> that doing this caching should be an explicit act of intent and not just a
>> simple flag working globally.
>
> B
On 04/12/2011 06:01 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> This was my original implementation but it was changed to this explicit API
> with the reasoning
> that doing this caching should be an explicit act of intent and not just a
> simple flag working globally.
But isn't the user explicitly saying
> Do we want to make caching of files a flag for processing all of the xml
> files?
>
> Currently we have methods:
> addFile(String path)
> addFile(File file)
> addCacheableFile(String path)
> addCacheableFile(File file)
>
> Could we instead condense these and allow configuration of whether to
Hm, if we move to jaxb are those generated binding classes serializable?
On 04/12/2011 02:41 PM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2011, at 21:26, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Do we want to make caching of files a flag for processing all of the xml
>> files?
>>
>> Currently we have meth
Do we want to make caching of files a flag for processing all of the xml
files?
Currently we have methods:
addFile(String path)
addFile(File file)
addCacheableFile(String path)
addCacheableFile(File file)
Could we instead condense these and allow configuration of whether to
try and cache xml fi
category is what you use to configure logging in the major logging
frameworks.
No, class name and line number are part of what is called "location
information" which is usually a formatting option. But its expensive,
as it generally means the logging framework creating an Exception and
lookin
What's the implication to the logged message content behind using a class name
vs. a subsystem name as a category? Would it be correct to assume the class
name/line number would only appear in the message if you use the class name as
a category? Or is that something more tied to the underlying
As hopefully everyone is aware by now we have switched over to use JBoss
Logging for our logging api in 4.0. JBoss Logging provides 2 unique
capabilities that we for sure wanted to leverage and I think I am just
now starting to come to grasp with. So I wanted to discuss some stuff
related to
