On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
> to move the companions code into chainsaw.
> What do you think on that?
> 
> I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
> having companions.
> 
> Please comment, when you can :-)
> 
> Cheers
> Christian
> 

Did a quick review of receivers and there are a few things in there that are 
general purpose that would be better to move into log4j while most everything 
else would move directly into Chainsaw. Specifically, the 
org.apache.log4j.rewrite package and org.apache.log4j.helpers.UtilLoggingLevel 
look like they might have a better to have in log4j.

http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/rewrite/package-summary.html
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/helpers/UtilLoggingLevel.html

I think OSGi does not like to have a package to span multiple jars, so it might 
make sense to tweak the package names so that Chainsaw.jar does not define any 
classes in packages that are already defined in log4j.jar. That likely would 
have also been an issue if we proceeded to do a companion release. All the 
package names came from the backport of the log4j 1.3 code and there was no 
thought of the OSGi in the package naming.

I think that I'd be able to do some quick surgery to "svn mv" the code from 
component and receivers into the proper places and fix up the import statements 
over the weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org

Reply via email to