Re: log4j 1.3 packaging

[Raymond DeCampo]

My vote would be for a build that includes the jar file as it is now and 
another jar file containing the minimal set of classes.  If a developer 
is interested in keeping the jar file size down he or she would probably 
not be intimidated by having to pick and choose appenders to add to the 
minimal jar.

Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Breaking log4j.jar to too many pieces will result in confusion. Also 
note that both ant.jar and option.jar are over 600Kb each.

Having said that, if we can define a good separation with log4j.jar and 
option.jar, then why not. But there is also advantage in having a 
single, albeit large, jar file: simplicity.

At 07:49 AM 6/25/2003 +1000, you wrote:

In an effort to get the size of the log4j.jar core file down, is there 
some
more breaking apart we can do?

Scott's done a lot of work in the XML & JDK 1.4 receiving, but perhaps 
they
could be in a utility jar along with some others? (sort of like Ant's
option.jar).


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]