I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j is released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will still work.
Scott On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers > in > > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)... > > > > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in > > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release. > > I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I > am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3 > classes or so, I would go with duplicating them. > > But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a > later log4j which might have the same classes > > > > > > > Scott > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Definitely! > >> > >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door! > >> > >> Thanks for all your help Christian, > >> > >> Scott > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier < > grobme...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then > >>> > >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good, > >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-) > >>> > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier > >>> > <grobme...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com > > > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in > to > >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven > project > >>> >> > then? > >>> >> > >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes. > >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then > >>> >> > >>> >> Christian > >>> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Scott > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org> > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an > OSGi > >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: > log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de > >>> >> > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://www.grobmeier.de > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >
