I'd think we could just remove LF5 and Chainsaw V1 from the log4j source tree. They haven't been updated in years, and folks can use a prior release of log4j if they want to get to them.
Scott On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Antony Stubbs <antony.stu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Hi guys, following on from my comment, I've uploaded a proposed > modularisation here: > > http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/7c5b4689d5cc509d207e3270fc6f012ea8064c6d > > http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/ce3ce992d509e8c341914437bbc11442711fc5bf > > As well as the module split, I would also do a more complete maven > migration > (except for possibly the NT build stuff). > > My immediate drive for this (apart from the other obvious benefits) is the > file size of the log4j jar (~800k). Removing LF5 alone removes 490k > (uncompressed). > > I know this drives up the complexity, but I think it is worth if to get the > at least the GUI stuff out. > > Cheers. > > > Antony Stubbs wrote: > > > > Hi guys, what's the established opinion from log4j about breaking > > log4j up into modules ie net, nt appender, chainsaw etc? > > > > Regards, > > Antony Stubbs > > Technical Architect - Prototyping > > Telecom Retail > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > > > > > > > > ----- > > ___________________________ > > http://stubbisms.wordpress.com > > > > > ----- > ___________________________ > > http://stubbisms.wordpress.com http://stubbisms.wordpress.com > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Modular-Build-tp28170343p28172026.html > Sent from the Log4j - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >
