On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> Moving component and receivers to core would be more work given the >> peculiarities of the tests. It took a couple of hours just to move the >> Rewrite appenders and their tests. > > > Because why exactly? I thought it could be done with svn cp? >
The files can be moved there, but the test environment is different and the tests will need to be modified to fit. extras and Chainsaw both use the Maven surefire plugin and expect configuration files and reference files to be in src/test/resources and available on the classpath, log4j's typically loads them from tests/input and tests/witnesses from the file system. Output files are written to tests/output in log4j. The OSGi manifest would also need to be tweaked for the new classes. Not hugely difficult, but more time consuming that moving the source and tests to extras or Chainsaw. > Actually I have no preference. I just think we need a pragmatic > approach. We do not the man power to release packages like > extras/receivers/whatever and therefore we need to move that stuff to > a proper location. From what I understood log4j is the better location > b/c the classes are expected there. Chainsaw is nearly the exclusive user of receivers and receivers is likely the exclusive user of components. They are used together, will be debugged together and should be released together and the easiest way to do that it to have them in the Chainsaw tree. http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/Principles_and_Patterns.pdf starting at page 17 has some principles for package architecture. I think all of those principles would favor putting the classes in Chainsaw. > > Can you explain a bit more in detail why it is more complicated to mv > classes to log4j-core than to chainsaw? I don't see the difference > See above. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
