Okay I've filed the bug and attached my patch. This needs to be reviewed sooner rather than later, as it touches a lot of files and merging will get messy quickly. I diffed against the latest revision as of 15 minutes ago.
Thanks! Nick On Apr 26, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > Great! > > Thanks all for your quick response. > > Nick understood about the timing. No problem. I need to go to sleep anyway. > 02:45... :-) > > From: Nick Williams <[email protected]> > To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> > Cc: Remko Popma <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:38 AM > Subject: Re: Ok to rename AsynchAppender? > > Makes sense to me. I'd only ask that you hold off on this until my warnings > cleanup patch has been applied. I touched a LOT of files, including that one, > and a merge with a rename could be more fun than I'm after. > > I'll be submitting my bug/patch within the next few minutes. > > Nick > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> The reason we are still beta is so changes like this can be made. I'm OK >> with it. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Remko Popma wrote: >> >>> I would like to rename AsynchAppender to AsyncAppender. >>> In addition I'd like to rename the plugin name for that appender from >>> Asynch to Async. >>> >>> Reasons for renaming: >>> * consistency with Log4j-1.x and Logback naming >>> * consistency with Log4j-2.0 Async Loggers naming >>> * my personal preference (Asynch looks like it rhymes with inch) >>> >>> I'm a bit concerned about the plugin renaming as it may break existing >>> configurations. >>> How much of an installed base do we estimate we currently have? >>> Is it possible to support both plugin names Asynch and Async? And would >>> that be a good idea or not? >>> >>> Thoughts? >> > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
