Paul, >From your other email it looks like you have got a good handle on what changes need to be made to Chainsaw to use the new Receiver model. I spoke with Mark and we agree it would be good if you could submit a patch with the changes.
cheers, Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 17:12 > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: [ChainSaw] internal TableModel size & memory considerations > > > > > That's a good refactor of the concept of the internal > > Processor object, > > > would make TableModel code lighter weight, encapsulate the > > updating of the > > > model into a separate class. > > > > agree - and this is good. > > Thx Oliver, you probably know the state of where the patches are > at, would > it be worth if I started modifying the MyTableModel class to use a > refactored ChainSawAppender by taking out the LoggingReceiver and Slurper > classes into this new Receiver model? Or is that too big a > chunk for me or > at this point in time of where the code is at? > > cheers, > > Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
