You should look at the existing LF5Appender for some inspiration. thanks! -Mark
> -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Burn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:56 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: [ChainSaw] internal TableModel size & memory > considerations > > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
