Brian, I am extremely glad that you are interested in discussing the API and our respective implementations. Also, I totally agree with what you wrote about the advantages of working together. So, I am very much looking forward to doing this.
An administrative question: Do people really want copies of our discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list? I am not sure it will be of interest to everyone involved with GNU Classpath. What about taking the discussion somewhere else, e.g. to your javalogging- [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (which is archived as well)? >[differences in object code size: because of identifier names?] Nope, we use the same naming style. One big difference is MemoryHandler (6589 bytes [including MemoryHandler.RingBuffer] vs. 1899 bytes). This is a place where my implementation is simpler (and it will be interesting to discuss the respective advantages and disadvantages). Another example is LogManager -- I don't have something like your LogManager.OrderedProperties (966 bytes). Probably, my code is buggy here -- and I would not have thought about this bug without having seen your (presumably correct) implementation. So, my code will have to grow in order to do the right thing. -- Sascha PS: I won't be able to do much for the next week or so, so please don't think I've lost interest if you don't hear from me immediately. I'll be back. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
