logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Womack <mwom...@bevocal.com>
Subject RE: An alternative JTable
Date Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:12:01 GMT

I re-read more carefully, and yes, it does make sense.

On a more trivial note, when Chainsaw is integrated, will it still be called


-----Original Message-----
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:ceki@qos.ch]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:12 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: An alternative JTable 

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?


My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/

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

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