Shibboleth Developers

[Scott Cantor <>]

Wu, Albert wrote:
> Licensing aside, my main concern would be that this forked version of
> log4cxx use the same configuarion file syntax as current version of
> Log4J.

log4cxx is an Apache project, I don't use that library. It emerged long 
after I started, and has never reached even basic maturity.

As far as the syntax is concerned, log4cpp's property file configurator was 
originally derived from the same syntax as log4j's, but was never 100% the 
same and probably is more divergent now. There's also never been an XML 
configurator for it, which is what most people use now for log4j. It does 
allow pluggable syntaxes, but I never touched it.

I don't have any particular intention of enhancing log4cpp, at least not 
unless somebody gives me code or something. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do 
some things to it occasionally, but my requirements are just portability and 
reliability, not new features.

> Well, at least it should be a strict subset if you don't intend
> to implement all features current Log4J supports. Since most of us
> likely need to configure Log4J elsewhere, it'd be much, much nicer to
> have the same config file syntax...

I'm not sure if you're saying you're dissatisfied with how it works now, or 
that you're afraid I was going to change it. Neither is really relevant to 
what I was bringing up here...I don't plan to make it better or worse and I 
don't intend to implement anything, merely fork my long-unchanged version 
off so there's no overlap.

-- Scott