I would prefer logging-log4j-server. Gary
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022, 11:31 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > We currently have logging-log4j-tools which contains the log server code. > The log4j server isn’t really a tool so I would propose that the repo > either be renamed to logging-log4j-samples or logging-log4j-server. The > pros and cons are: > > logging-log4j-samples: > Pros: > 1. Other sample code currently in the log4j2 repo could move here. > Cons: > 1. If we ever want to release log4j-server it would be hard to do > from a samples repo. However, we could create the logging-log4j-server repo > at that time and then move the code there. > > logging-log4j-server: > Pros: > 1. Lets us do whatever we want with the server code. > Cons: > 1. Doesn’t do anything to allow other sample code to be moved from > the log4j2 repo. > > Another option is to do both. > > Note - I am also proposing that the changes utility code that Volkan is > creating be moved into logging-log4j-tools as it really doesn’t belong in > log4j2 itself and can be used by both 2.x and 3.x. If we do this then the > utility classes can be independently maintained and released. > > My preference would be to clone logging-log4j-tools to > logging-log4j-server and then delete what is currently in the log4j-tools > repo. > > Thoughts? > > Ralph
