Menu
▾
▴
log4cpp-devel
|
From: waffel <wa...@ho...> - 2007-09-03 19:11:45
|
I have very nice news! Our 1.0 release is out and available for download on the sourceforge site (https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=15190&package_id=244425). Please try it out and have a look if things ok with this release. At this point many thanks to all developers and users which have made this release available! Hopfully we can gat some more feature to the library and anybody can have a look over the testcases. I have only checked (and created) the release under the gentoo system. Hope it can be used also on all the other platforms we support. Next we should have a look over all the open bugs in from the SF bugtracker and close (or) them. For everybody who is interested about the code history and other informations about the project: Have a look at http://www.ohloh.net/projects/3598?p=log4cpp Regards, - waffel |
|
From: Scott C. <can...@os...> - 2007-09-03 22:09:12
|
> Please try it out and have a look if things ok with this release. In short, no. I'm getting a lot of errors on Windows with VC6 so far. Haven't tried VC8 yet. I'd suggest pulling this release for the time being until ever supported platform checks clean. > I have only checked (and created) the release under the gentoo system. > Hope it can be used also on all the other platforms we support. If we need volunteers to maintain the other platforms, then that's fine, but we probably should have a process to sign off on releases so that each tester has a chance to report in. I didn't try Windows because I assumed that was being tested by the maintainers, so I was focusing on Solaris and OS X. I'll provide the Windows fixes as soon as I get it to build. -- Scott |
|
From: Scott C. <can...@os...> - 2007-09-03 22:30:39
|
Unfortunately the Windows errors aren't simple. I think the Factory stuff is using function templates in some way that doesn't work on the older Microsoft compiler, and there's some kind of linker error with the newer compiler. That one's just going to take some work, but the template error is probably not fixable without changing a lot of code I haven't seen (the Factory API post-dates anything I've seen in the code, and I don't know what it does yet). I need VC6 compatibility for the foreseeable future, so I may need to stay with my fork of the code if there isn't a volunteer to work on that, or some simple way to just compile out the factory API. Is there a description somewhere of what that does? Is it optional, or is it used internally now? -- Scott |
|
From: Konstantin L. <1da...@ma...> - 2007-09-04 07:20:04
|
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to <log...@li...> on Mon, 3 Sep 2007
18:30:25 -0400:
SC> Unfortunately the Windows errors aren't simple. I think the Factory
SC> stuff is using function templates in some way that doesn't work on the
SC> older Microsoft compiler, and there's some kind of linker error with
SC> the newer compiler.
SC> That one's just going to take some work, but the template error is
SC> probably not fixable without changing a lot of code I haven't seen (the
SC> Factory API post-dates anything I've seen in the code, and I don't know
SC> what it does yet).
SC> I need VC6 compatibility for the foreseeable future, so I may need to
SC> stay with my fork of the code if there isn't a volunteer to work on
SC> that, or some simple way to just compile out the factory API. Is there
SC> a description somewhere of what that does? Is it optional, or is it
SC> used internally now?
Scott, it is my code and I will fix it very soon, I hope.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
|
|
From: Scott C. <can...@os...> - 2007-09-04 15:04:55
|
> Scott, it is my code and I will fix it very soon, I hope. Sounds like you have access to VC6 from your response, but if not I can feed you the error messages in a bug report. -- Scott |
|
From: Konstantin L. <1da...@ma...> - 2007-09-04 15:25:09
|
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to <log...@li...> on Tue, 4 Sep 2007
11:04:45 -0400:
??>> Scott, it is my code and I will fix it very soon, I hope.
SC> Sounds like you have access to VC6 from your response,
Yes :)
SC> but if not I can feed you the error messages in a bug report.
There is no need to do this. I am allmost fix this.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
|
|
From: Konstantin L. <1da...@ma...> - 2007-09-05 15:32:09
|
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to <log...@li...> on Mon, 3 Sep 2007
18:30:25 -0400:
SC> Unfortunately the Windows errors aren't simple. I think the Factory
SC> stuff is using function templates in some way that doesn't work on the
SC> older Microsoft compiler, and there's some kind of linker error with
SC> the newer compiler.
SC> That one's just going to take some work, but the template error is
SC> probably not fixable without changing a lot of code I haven't seen (the
SC> Factory API post-dates anything I've seen in the code, and I don't know
SC> what it does yet).
SC> I need VC6 compatibility for the foreseeable future, so I may need to
SC> stay with my fork of the code if there isn't a volunteer to work on
SC> that, or some simple way to just compile out the factory API. Is there
SC> a description somewhere of what that does? Is it optional, or is it
SC> used internally now?
Fixed. It was vary hard because msvc6 is not true C++ compiler. No true
template member function is really pain. Linking error was really nasty. Its
unfixable in 'a right way'. I have to instantiate manually
CategoryStream::operator << for basic types and std::string and
std::wstring. Please, check it. I am not sure Factory stuff workable under
msvc6, but as I understand you don't need it anyway.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
|
|
From: Scott C. <can...@os...> - 2007-09-05 15:36:15
|
> Fixed. It was vary hard because msvc6 is not true C++ compiler. No true > template member function is really pain. Linking error was really nasty. > Its unfixable in 'a right way'. I have to instantiate manually > CategoryStream::operator << for basic types and std::string and > std::wstring. Please, check it. I am not sure Factory stuff workable under > msvc6, but as I understand you don't need it anyway. No, I don't use it. Is there a brief description of what it does? I'll pull the tree again and try it out. -- Scott |
|
From: Konstantin L. <1da...@ma...> - 2007-09-05 15:55:30
|
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to "'Konstantin Litvinenko'" <1da...@ma...>;
<log...@li...> on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:36:14 -0400:
??>> Fixed. It was vary hard because msvc6 is not true C++ compiler. No
??>> true template member function is really pain. Linking error was really
??>> nasty. Its unfixable in 'a right way'. I have to instantiate manually
??>> CategoryStream::operator << for basic types and std::string and
std::wstring. Please, check it. I am
??>> not sure Factory stuff workable under msvc6, but as I understand you
??>> don't need it anyway.
SC> No, I don't use it. Is there a brief description of what it does?
Nope. My english is too bad to make such usefull description :((.
Purpose of this machinery is to provide a way to write different
configurators that independed of knowledge what appenders/layout/etc exists.
If you look on PropertyConfiguratorImpl.cpp you will see that
PropertyConfiguratorImpl knows all about appenders/layouts/etc that exists
in the library. But if I write my own appender or layout it can't be
configured with help of PropertyConfigurator because it doesn't know
anything about it. If PropertyConfigurator will be rewrited using Factory
stuffs it will be generic and can be used for configuring my
appender/layout.
SC> I'll pull the tree again and try it out.
I tested it on msvc6 + sp5.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
|
|
From: Scott C. <can...@os...> - 2007-09-05 15:59:32
|
> Purpose of this machinery is to provide a way to write different > configurators that independed of knowledge what appenders/layout/etc > exists. I understand, it's for dynamically creating the objects so the configuration doesn't have to know the classes at compile time. > If you look on PropertyConfiguratorImpl.cpp you will see that > PropertyConfiguratorImpl knows all about appenders/layouts/etc that exists > in the library. But if I write my own appender or layout it can't be > configured with help of PropertyConfigurator because it doesn't know > anything about it. If PropertyConfigurator will be rewrited using Factory > stuffs it will be generic and can be used for configuring my > appender/layout. So it hasn't been reimplemented yet to support this? -- Scott |
|
From: Konstantin L. <1da...@ma...> - 2007-09-05 16:09:03
|
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to <log...@li...> on Wed, 5 Sep 2007
11:59:31 -0400:
??>> If you look on PropertyConfiguratorImpl.cpp you will see that
??>> PropertyConfiguratorImpl knows all about appenders/layouts/etc that
??>> exists in the library. But if I write my own appender or layout it
??>> can't be configured with help of PropertyConfigurator because it
??>> doesn't know anything about it. If PropertyConfigurator will be
??>> rewrited using Factory stuffs it will be generic and can be used for
??>> configuring my appender/layout.
SC> So it hasn't been reimplemented yet to support this?
No. I think I can do such rewrite. It's pretty easy. I wrote xml
configurator based on factories for my company. It's much more simple than
PropertyConfigurator.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X