logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Stubbs <antony.stu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Modular Build
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:15:55 GMT
Well Chainsaw v2 (http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/index.html) supersedes V1 right, and is
hosted elsewhere right? So I don't see any point in keeping the source for v1 HEAD.

On 8/04/2010, at 12:09 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:

> Neither of these tools are hosted in a separate repository that I'm aware of.  However,
they are always available from svn, or via previous releases.  If someone wanted to, they
could host them in a different repository, I'm not sure we need to worry about it.  
> 
> It could be useful to tag the source tree just before they were removed.
> 
> Scott
> 
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Antony Stubbs <antony.stubbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, that either the LF5 and Chainsaw projects
> have been superseded and/or the current version's source is hosted in a
> separate repository, then IMO most definitely they should be deleted from
> this repo.
> 
> 
> Scott Deboy wrote:
> >
> > I'd think we could just remove LF5 and Chainsaw V1 from the log4j source
> > tree.  They haven't been updated in years, and folks can use a prior
> > release
> > of log4j if they want to get to them.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Antony Stubbs
> > <antony.stubbs@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi guys, following on from my comment, I've uploaded a proposed
> >> modularisation here:
> >>
> >> http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/7c5b4689d5cc509d207e3270fc6f012ea8064c6d
> >>
> >> http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/ce3ce992d509e8c341914437bbc11442711fc5bf
> >>
> >> As well as the module split, I would also do a more complete maven
> >> migration
> >> (except for possibly the NT build stuff).
> >>
> >> My immediate drive for this (apart from the other obvious benefits) is
> >> the
> >> file size of the log4j jar (~800k). Removing LF5 alone removes 490k
> >> (uncompressed).
> >>
> >> I know this drives up the complexity, but I think it is worth if to get
> >> the
> >> at least the GUI stuff out.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Antony Stubbs wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi guys, what's the established opinion from log4j about breaking
> >> > log4j up into modules ie net, nt appender, chainsaw etc?

Mime
View raw message