If we do merge async into core, can we do it after beta 5? I'd like to get it out there and get people's feedback...
Sent from my iPhone On 2013/04/13, at 2:11, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > The dependency only kicks in when you run the class. We have the same issue > in Commoms VFS and we do not split out in a bunch of jars, nice and simple. > > Gary > > On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:38, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to avoid what we had with log4j 1.x - the receivers/companions >> mess. Whether or something belongs in core or not is a fuzzy judgment call >> sometimes. If possible, I would like to see as much as possible included in >> a single 'release' (that includes 'receivers/companions' if they ever are >> rewritten for log4j2). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> It probably should be done anyway, but the various components would also >>> need to check for the presence of the disruptor and log a warning if it >>> isn't there (I believe we do this for Jansi and Jackson) as the disruptor >>> would have to be an optional dependency. In the async package it can be >>> non-optional so this is less important for anyone using Maven. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>>> Because it has a dependency on the Disruptor, which Remko has said may not >>>> work on all JDKs >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why not more log4j-async into the core? >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
