Fine, but let's not end up with another 479k jar (like Log4j-1.2.17) all in
the name of "fewer jars". Again, the option of an uber jar is fine for those
who don't care about bloating their application. But for those who want to
use Log4j2 purely for logging in their application, let's keep it minimal and
not bloat the jar up with a bunch of utility code that the application will
never make use of.
Jake
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:08:47 -0700
Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
The fewer jars the better IMO.
Gary
On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:53, Remko Popma <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
These all look doable.
About Statistics from various components, @Ralph, anything in particular
you'd like to see? (If not, it is pretty easy to add them later.)
Also, can the JMX related classes go into core or does this need a
separate module?
I would prefer core so that this is always available for users without
fiddling with extra jars.
Thoughts?
On 2013/04/03, at 9:35, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Features I would like to see in JMX:
1. Show all the LoggerContexts and their configurations.
2. Ability to modify a configuration (this should involve cloning the
current configuration, modifying it and then replacing the prior
configuration with the new one).
3. Statistics from various components.
4. Display log output on the JMX console (at least the StatusLogger
output).
On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:38 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
I would like to take a stab at implementing JMX support for log4j2.
What features would you like to see with regards to JMX? Ideas are welcome!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
