Ceki, >>It also conserves socket ports since you only need one >>port instead of a port per SocketAppender. > >Well... the total number of opened connected is identical in both >architectures. >Not an excessively strong argument imho.
You are right, it is not the strongest argument. The number of connections are the same. The dynamic nature and convienence of the appender set up is probably the strongest. >>I am working on modifications to Chainsaw so that it can actively initiate >>connections with ServerSocketAppenders instead of only passively accept >>connections from SocketAppenders. Then you could use it to connect to any >>number of sources. > >Good. Let me know how it goes. Cheers, Ceki I have traded some emails with Oliver, and I got the basic functionality working. Just need to pretty it up and expose it with some Swing code. Oliver will probably want to implement my hacks in a better way for the real deal. I have some other ideas for expanding the design and implementation of Chainsaw that I plan to share at some point in the near future. I still think a viewer tool like Chainsaw would make a good addition to log4j. >ps: Thanks for the neat contribution by the way! You're welcome. I hope people find it useful. -Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
