logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:22:14 GMT

On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
> to move the companions code into chainsaw.
> What do you think on that?
> 
> I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
> having companions.
> 
> Please comment, when you can :-)
> 
> Cheers
> Christian
> 

Did a quick review of receivers and there are a few things in there that are general purpose
that would be better to move into log4j while most everything else would move directly into
Chainsaw. Specifically, the org.apache.log4j.rewrite package and org.apache.log4j.helpers.UtilLoggingLevel
look like they might have a better to have in log4j.

http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/rewrite/package-summary.html
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/helpers/UtilLoggingLevel.html

I think OSGi does not like to have a package to span multiple jars, so it might make sense
to tweak the package names so that Chainsaw.jar does not define any classes in packages that
are already defined in log4j.jar. That likely would have also been an issue if we proceeded
to do a companion release. All the package names came from the backport of the log4j 1.3 code
and there was no thought of the OSGi in the package naming.

I think that I'd be able to do some quick surgery to "svn mv" the code from component and
receivers into the proper places and fix up the import statements over the weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message