Jan Luehe wrote:
> Vince,
>
> vince kraemer wrote On 08/09/06 16:04,:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Those changes were made in response to
>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=544, right?
>
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>> That issue implies that developers want to be able to read the access
>> log while doing development. (At least it does to me).
>>
>> If the access logging is turned off (by default), should we revert
>> the changes made to address 544, so the cost to someone going into
>> production is lower "out-of-the-box"?
>
>
> I'm not sure that would be the right thing to do, because anybody
> turning access
> logging on would expect immediate updates. If we reverted the change
> you're referring
> to, we would again disappoint developers' expecations about immediate
> updates
> once access logging has been turned on.
But haven't we already disappointed developers by having the access log
turned off by default?...
>
> Jan
>
>
>>
>> vbk