+1 Not a comitter, but I think this is a great offer that just can't be turned down. It is a credit to ThoughtWorks that they are considering the donation of this tool and it's implementation. I have not had a chance to look at the tool thoroughly, but from the description it appears to be very robust and mature.
It does seem to me that how the code gets used/integrated needs to be worked out. As Ceki says, if nothing else it will be an invaluable set of code to glean from. But I suspect it will be more than that. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 3:22 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: [Vote] LogFactor5 Donation > > > > Hi all, > > Brad Marlborough recently proposed to donate LogFactor5 to > the log4j project. > Are we as a community interested in this contribution? > LogFactor5 seems sexier > than chainsaw but sex appeal is not everything. On the other hand, > I am sure there is a lot to lean from studying the code if we > don't adopt > lf5 as is. It > all depends on the developers who assume charge for the gui > extensions for > log4j. > > Having talked Oliver Burn (the author of chainsaw) on the > issue, I view the > donation > quite favorably. So here is my +1. Oliver? Others? > > > -- > Ceki > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
