Google has a serious case of NIH syndrome which is why I tend to avoid their Java libraries. ;)
Splitting log4j-kafka sounds like a good first step. Hopefully we can figure out a manageable way to handle the docs over time. On 2 May 2017 at 03:19, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote: > Sounds good. > > I think a first step would be for us to cooperate on completing the > separation of log4j-kafka that I started, and then use that as a template > for others. > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Just to make sure this sounds reasonable, here's my idea for a roadmap: > > > > 2.9: separate out more modules (not necessarily into their own repo or > > repos yet) so that log4j-core contains minimal dependencies. > > 2.10: log4j-core-spi or whatever the name, making it easier for other > > modules to release on their own without being synced up with log4j-core > > versions > > > > With the current JPMS drama going on, it seems like we may have more time > > before Java 9 is released, so we should have time to follow this path > > rather than attempting the full on modularization all in one go. > > > > On 30 April 2017 at 11:56, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I doubt Google uses Git then. > > > > > > One of the main goals of separating repositories is to make release > > > management easier so we can RERO more! Though part of the problem there > > is > > > that for some reason, the release process requires running all the > tests > > > and whatnot at least 3 times or more. > > > > > > On 30 April 2017 at 11:45, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Maybe more than one repo isn't such a good idea? I hear Google uses a > > >> single repo for all their code... > > >> > > >> Gary > > >> > > >> On Apr 30, 2017 9:41 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I've noticed just with the Scala repo that integrating various > > >> repositories > > >> > into a single coherent website is not so easy anymore (and it wasn't > > >> really > > >> > all that easy in the first place). While it may be possible to > manage > > >> each > > >> > repository's website individually and use symlinks in the svn repo > to > > >> keep > > >> > the sites linked together, I think there may be easier ways to > manage > > >> this > > >> > if we took a look at alternative site management tools out there. > I've > > >> > thought about the possibility that we manage our site in a separate > > git > > >> > repo, but then we'd have to maintain more clear version numbers in > the > > >> > documentation instead of relying on tagging the docs with the > release. > > >> > > > >> > Besides plain Asciidoc which as been mentioned here before, the only > > >> open > > >> > source tool I know of that looks interesting here is the one made by > > >> vertx: > > >> > <https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-docgen>. See also their site > source > > >> for > > >> > an example on advanced usage: <https://github.com/vert-x3/ve > > >> rtx-web-site>. > > >> > > > >> > On 25 April 2017 at 13:59, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Ideally, the two will align, just like the OSGi modules (which > tend > > to > > >> > > directly correspond with maven modules since that's how they're > > >> normally > > >> > > assembled). > > >> > > > > >> > > On 25 April 2017 at 13:39, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> We are going to have to prefix "module" with "Java" or "Maven" in > > >> > >> discussions and documentation to avoid confusion from now on... > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Gary > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Apr 25, 2017 10:59 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > If you browse around the Java 9 javadocs, you'll see that they > > >> split > > >> > >> things > > >> > >> > up by module there as well. With that in mind, hopefully it's > not > > >> too > > >> > >> > complicated to support. What I really want to see is > inter-module > > >> > links > > >> > >> > (both Java modules and Maven modules that is) work properly. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On 25 April 2017 at 11:49, Ralph Goers < > > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > > >> > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Ouch. This is where it gets messy. Currently, the javadoc is > > >> built > > >> > >> > > independently for each module. I’m not sure how to aggregate > > them > > >> > all > > >> > >> > > together but I’m sure Java 9 must be doing that with all the > > >> modules > > >> > >> they > > >> > >> > > are supporting. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Ralph > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Mikael Ståldal < > > >> > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > When adding new modules to the main repo, does each module > > need > > >> > its > > >> > >> own > > >> > >> > > > site directory? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mikael Ståldal < > > >> > >> > > mikael.stal...@magine.com> > > >> > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> Yes, they should stay in the main repo, at least for the > > time > > >> > >> being. > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gary Gregory < > > >> > >> garydgreg...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> And all of that should stay in the same repo IMO. > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> Gary > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> On Apr 25, 2017 2:51 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" < > > >> > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> I guess that log4-core will become: > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-core (will depend on log4j-spi) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-spi > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-csv > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-xml (XmlLayout) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-json (JsonLayout) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-yaml (YamlLayout) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-kafka > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-smtp > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jms > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jdbc (or can this be kept in log4j-core?) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jpa > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-zeromq > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-server (already done, not yet released) > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-tools (command line tools) > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> Then we should also split log4j-nosql: > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-cassandra > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-couchdb > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-mongodb > > >> > >> > > >>>> - log4j-lucene (new, under development) > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Remko Popma < > > >> > >> remko.po...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> How many new modules are we talking about, concretely? > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> Matt mentioned the StackOverflow questions about > > transitive > > >> > >> > > >>> dependencies > > >> > >> > > >>>>> etc, but I imagine splitting log4j-core into 5 or more > > new > > >> > >> modules > > >> > >> > > >>> will > > >> > >> > > >>>>> also cause confusion... It won't be trivial for users > to > > >> > figure > > >> > >> out > > >> > >> > > >>> which > > >> > >> > > >>>>> of the many modules they do or don't need. The coarse > > >> > >> granularity > > >> > >> > of > > >> > >> > > >>> the > > >> > >> > > >>>>> current modules is a good thing for users. > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> What problem are we trying to solve? And how can we > solve > > >> it > > >> > >> with > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > > >>>> least > > >> > >> > > >>>>> disruption to our users? > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> Would it be an idea, for example, to provide separate > > jars > > >> for > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > >>>> separate > > >> > >> > > >>>>> modules, but in addition create a combined jar > > >> > (log4j-core-all) > > >> > >> > that > > >> > >> > > >>>>> contains all the classes in log4j-core as well as the > > >> classes > > >> > in > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > > >>> new > > >> > >> > > >>>>> modules we split out from core? > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Matt Sicker < > > >> > boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > >>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> I agree with Ralph here. I'm sure we'll figure out > > rather > > >> > >> quickly > > >> > >> > > >>> which > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> modules are easy to put into rarely updated > > repositories. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> On 24 April 2017 at 11:39, Ralph Goers < > > >> > >> > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> I would prefer a hybrid approach. First things > should > > be > > >> > >> moved > > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> separate modules. Then, if they don’t seem to be > > modified > > >> > >> > > >>> frequently > > >> > >> > > >>>>> they > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> can be moved to a separate repo. For example, I think > > it > > >> > >> would be > > >> > >> > > >>> OK > > >> > >> > > >>>>> for > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> the Flume Appender to be in a separate repo. It > hasn’t > > >> > >> changed in > > >> > >> > > >>>>> quite a > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> while and I can’t remember the last time it was > > modified > > >> due > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > > >>>> changes > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> in > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> Log4j it has and while continue to change with > changes > > >> made > > >> > in > > >> > >> > > >>> Flume > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> releases. I imagine we have quite a few components > > that > > >> are > > >> > >> > > >>> similar. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> Ralph > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Gary Gregory < > > >> > >> > > >>> garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017 2:38 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" < > > >> > >> > > >>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I fully agree with Matt's both proposals. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I'm skeptic to creating more repositories (than we > > >> already > > >> > >> have) > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> though. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> I > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> think that we should start by splitting out modules > > from > > >> > >> > > >>> log4j-core > > >> > >> > > >>>>> and > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> keep those modules in the main repository with > > >> synchronized > > >> > >> > > >>>>> versioning > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> and > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> releases, at least for the 2.9 release. We can > always > > >> move > > >> > >> those > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> modules > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> to > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> other repositories later if we want to. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I do not like more repos either. Since we have > already > > >> gone > > >> > >> down > > >> > >> > > >>>> the > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> more > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> modules road, I say we keep going. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Gary > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> It is a lot of administrative work to create a new > > >> > repository > > >> > >> > > >>> (as > > >> > >> > > >>>> we > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> have > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> seen for log4j-scala), I don't want us to do all > that > > >> work > > >> > >> over > > >> > >> > > >>> and > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> over > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> again unless really necessary. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> We have a JIRA ticket for this: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1650 > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I have already started by breaking out log4j-server: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851 > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I think the next step is to break out plugins > (layouts > > >> and > > >> > >> > > >>>> appenders) > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> with > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> optional 3rd party dependencies into their own > > modules. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Matt Sicker < > > >> > >> boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I think I brought this topic up like 3 years ago > > when I > > >> > was > > >> > >> > > >>>> working > > >> > >> > > >>>>> on > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> initial OSGi support, but now that we have 3 more > > years > > >> > >> worth > > >> > >> > > >>> of > > >> > >> > > >>>>> code > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> additions and optional features, I think this might > > be > > >> a > > >> > >> more > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> appropriate > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time to discuss it again in light of experience. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Building log4j-core itself already takes a long > time, > > >> and > > >> > >> many > > >> > >> > > >>>>> plugins > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> aren't updated very often at all. In the past, > > >> requiring > > >> > >> users > > >> > >> > > >>> to > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> simply > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> add log4j-core plus any transitive dependencies to > > use > > >> > >> optional > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> features > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> seemed to work well enough, but I still think > that's > > a > > >> > >> > > >>> confusing > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> distribution mechanism as demonstrated by the > > numerous > > >> bug > > >> > >> > > >>> reports > > >> > >> > > >>>>> and > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Stack Overflow posts regarding missing transitive > > >> > >> dependencies > > >> > >> > > >>> for > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> various > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> features. I spent some time experimenting with > Log4j > > >> Boot > > >> > a > > >> > >> > > >>> little > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> while > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ago to help alleviate this problem, but this may be > > >> > >> > > >>> unnecessary if > > >> > >> > > >>>>> we > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> can > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> agree to modularize log4j-core itself. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I have two different proposals, both of which can > be > > >> used > > >> > at > > >> > >> > > >>> the > > >> > >> > > >>>>> same > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> time. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Split out everything from log4j-core that > requires > > >> 3rd > > >> > >> party > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies (except for AsyncLogger, though > perhaps > > we > > >> > >> could > > >> > >> > > >>>>> consider > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> shading and renaming those classes like some other > > low > > >> > level > > >> > >> > > >>>>> libraries > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> do > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> with JCTools). Ideally, I'd like to see each module > > >> have > > >> > >> > > >>> required > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies instead of optional ones, so that if, > > for > > >> > >> > > >>> instance, I > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> include > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a "log4j-config-yaml" dependency, I know that Log4j > > >> will > > >> > >> > > >>> support > > >> > >> > > >>>>> YAML > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> configuration without having to specify the > > individual > > >> > >> Jackson > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Split out from log4j-core a sort of log4j-spi > > module > > >> > >> which > > >> > >> > > >>>>> defines > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> interfaces, abstract classes, and annotations for > > >> plugins > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > > >>>> would > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> be > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> promoted to the same level of backwards > compatibility > > >> > >> > > >>> guarantees > > >> > >> > > >>>> as > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> log4j-api. This would aid in cementing what we > really > > >> wish > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > > >>>>> maintain > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility with in the backend while allowing > > other > > >> > >> modules > > >> > >> > > >>> to > > >> > >> > > >>>>> have > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> less > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> strict guarantees. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> With proposal #1, I'd think that we could more > easily > > >> > start > > >> > >> > > >>> moving > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> modules > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> into separate repositories and release trains. > > Without > > >> #2, > > >> > >> > > >>> though, > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> this > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> makes version support more annoying to handle, but > > >> that's > > >> > >> what > > >> > >> > > >>>> we'll > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> face > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> regardless as we separate more repositories. If we > go > > >> this > > >> > >> > > >>> route, > > >> > >> > > >>>>> then > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> there will be no need for a Log4j Boot subproject. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> What do you all think? > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [image: MagineTV] > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal* > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Senior software developer > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> *Magine TV* > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > >> > >> > > >>> www.magine.com > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be > > >> contained > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> > > >>> this > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in > > this > > >> > >> message > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such > a > > >> > >> person), > > >> > >> > > >>> you > > >> > >> > > >>>>> may > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> not > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such > case, > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify > the > > >> > sender > > >> > >> by > > >> > >> > > >>>> reply > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>>> email. > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> -- > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> -- > > >> > >> > > >>>> [image: MagineTV] > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> *Mikael Ståldal* > > >> > >> > > >>>> Senior software developer > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> *Magine TV* > > >> > >> > > >>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > >>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > >> > www.magine.com > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be > > contained > > >> in > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> > > >>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > > >> message > > >> > >> > > >>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > > >> person), > > >> > >> you > > >> > >> > may > > >> > >> > > >>> not > > >> > >> > > >>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > >> > >> > > >>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the > > >> sender by > > >> > >> > reply > > >> > >> > > >>>> email. > > >> > >> > > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > > >> > >> > > >> [image: MagineTV] > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> *Mikael Ståldal* > > >> > >> > > >> Senior software developer > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> *Magine TV* > > >> > >> > > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > >> www.magine.com > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be > contained > > in > > >> > this > > >> > >> > > >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > > >> message > > >> > >> > > >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > > person), > > >> > you > > >> > >> may > > >> > >> > > not > > >> > >> > > >> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > >> > >> > > >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the > sender > > >> by > > >> > >> reply > > >> > >> > > >> email. > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > -- > > >> > >> > > > [image: MagineTV] > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > *Mikael Ståldal* > > >> > >> > > > Senior software developer > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > *Magine TV* > > >> > >> > > > mikael.stal...@magine.com > > >> > >> > > > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > >> www.magine.com > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained > > in > > >> > this > > >> > >> > > > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > > message > > >> > >> > > > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > > person), > > >> you > > >> > >> may > > >> > >> > > not > > >> > >> > > > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > >> > >> > > > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the > sender > > by > > >> > >> reply > > >> > >> > > > email. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > mikael.stal...@magine.com > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
