logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ANN] Deleting receivers and components 'companions'
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:29:07 GMT
The separation seems relatively arbitrary to me.  Appenders generally go in
to core.  The other side of appenders (receivers) don't.  Plugin? Declared
in the DTD...but...not in core.  Even though the DTD is in core.

Maybe everything optional should be pulled out of core - including
appenders.  I assume the reason they are in core is due to the fact that
people don't want to download a separate jar to get a
FileAppender..although, that justification doesn't seem to fit the guidance
provided by ObjectMentor :)


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:

> On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> >> Moving component and receivers to core would be more work given the
> peculiarities of the tests. It took a couple of hours just to move the
> Rewrite appenders and their tests.
> >
> >
> > Because why exactly? I thought it could be done with svn cp?
> >
> The files can be moved there, but the test environment is different and the
> tests will need to be modified to fit.
> extras and Chainsaw both use the Maven surefire plugin and expect
> configuration files and reference files to be in src/test/resources and
> available on the classpath, log4j's typically loads them from tests/input
> and tests/witnesses from the file system. Output files are written to
> tests/output in log4j.
> The OSGi manifest would also need to be tweaked for the new classes.
> Not hugely difficult, but more time consuming that moving the source and
> tests to extras or Chainsaw.
> > Actually I have no preference. I just think we need a pragmatic
> > approach. We do not the man power to release packages like
> > extras/receivers/whatever and therefore we need to move that stuff to
> > a proper location. From what I understood log4j is the better location
> > b/c the classes are expected there.
> Chainsaw is nearly the exclusive user of receivers and receivers is likely
> the exclusive user of components.  They are used together, will be debugged
> together and should be released together and the easiest way to do that it
> to have them in the Chainsaw tree.
> http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/Principles_and_Patterns.pdfstarting at
page 17 has some principles for package architecture. I think
> all of those principles would favor putting the classes in Chainsaw.
> >
> > Can you explain a bit more in detail why it is more complicated to mv
> > classes to log4j-core than to chainsaw? I don't see the difference
> >
> See above.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message