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: Modular Build
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:33:24 GMT
I agree, we should nuke them...

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Antony Stubbs <antony.stubbs@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 have been superseded and/or the current version's source is hosted in a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