> > > Having duplicates lying around makes it quite difficult > to maintain > > > the code. Now that both Scott and you have access to the log4j CVS > > > repository and not just the sandbox, I ask you please > stop maintaining > > > duplicates in log4j and log4j-sandbox. Given that your > enhancements to > > > chainsaw remain unchallenged, please also migrate > chainsaw as well as > > > the new plugin, receiver code. > > > > > > Is that OK with everyone? Mark?
Gee guys, I wasn't up this morning at 1am PDT...sorry. :-) I agree that the number of duplicate classes is getting to be too much. Now that Paul and Scott have core cvs access, then yes, they should start moving the classes over. Looks like they already did. > >I'm certainly ok with that, probably the major classes in > the Sandbox that > >you and Mark should review before this happens though are: > > > >* SocketReceiver > >* SocketNode > >* SocketNodeEventListener > >* log4j.dtd > > Regardless of what gets committed into log4j-proper, we can always > revert if need be. That is one of the advantages of using a version > control system. Event files that get removed by CVS actually go to the > CVS attic, they can be resuscitated if need be. > > Peer review can be performed independently of the location of the > file. Having duplicates just increases the maintenance pain without > any tangible advantages, AFAIT. Yes, but I think we had better plan some time and effort for peer review. I'd also like any related test classes to be reviewed to see if they should be extended to test the new changes. There is a LOT of stuff being moved in. > >Since these are changes to classes that are already in 1.2.7 > or earlier. > > > >There are some new Appenders/Receivers in the sandbox, but > since they will > >not have been used by many, if at all, they are probably > safe to merge into > >the core. > > Placing files in log4j-proper does not mean much as long as the files > are not in the 1.3 distribution. > > >While we're here, could the Servlet and Selector stuff go > into core now too? > >They look/sound very useful. > > Good point. The selector is a priority item. I have > not yet carefully studied the servlet code. I defer to Jake on the selectors. I'd let the servlets cook for a bit longer. I don't think there is a rush to push them into the core. -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
