logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Oliver Burn" <oli...@puppycrawl.com>
Subject RE: An alternative JTable
Date Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:52:01 GMT
> At 10:48 22.03.2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >2) apply the filters on e. If e is filtered out, then no further
> > >processing is necessary. Otherwise, insert e into B, then invoke
> > >fireUptadeTable() method.
> >
> >One feature of Chainsaw that I really like is the ability to retroactively
> >apply a filter to received events.  So, if you don't have a buffer that
> >contains all of the events, this current feature will be much less useful.
> >All of the events will not be present for the new filter.  And I find it
> >really useful when trying to track stuff down.
> That's what buffer A is for. It contains all the events. Buffer B contains
> the events after filtering. Does that make sense?

Yes, but for one limitation. With the current approach it is possible to pause the collection
of events and to change the filter
criteria on the currently
collected events. With the technique you are proposing, this would not be
possible. This is because when the filter critera changes, the filtered
events buffer would need to be repopulated from the other buffer which
contains new events.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message