Removed said code.

On 9 April 2014 06:27, Bruce Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> As I still do not have the ability to commit code, the best I can do is
> provide a patch. I will provide an updated patch putting this all in a new
> module.
>
> In the mean time, could someone apply the patch on the JIRA that removes
> the current streaming code?
> On Apr 8, 2014 10:58 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I would recommend pulling it out and moving it to its own module on a
>> separate branch until we are happy with it.
>>
>> Do you have the stack tests so I can run them?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Bruce Brouwer <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I would like to finish up LOG4J2-547, but I had some questions that are
>> on the JIRA that I would like to get answered. I'll summarize them here:
>> >
>> > 1) Should the Logger streams be put in its own module?
>> >     * If we do this, it will make testing easier as I could pull in
>> log4j-core (as a test dependency).
>> >     * Removing the factory method from the Logger interface fits the
>> pattern of most other streaming wrappers in the JDK which use constructors.
>> So there is no good reason for why this needs to be in log4j-api. But there
>> is no good reason for it to be in core, either as it only depends on
>> log4j-api, not log4j-core.
>> >
>> > 2) Should we reverse the order of identifying the caller to start at
>> the bottom of the call stack, rather than the top
>> >     * The performance difference is so small that it cannot be detected
>> with JMH
>> >     * This impacts the way I implement the logger streams (inheritance
>> vs. wrapper)
>> >     * It makes the code simpler trying to detect the caller
>> >
>> > Or do we forget the logger streams entirely. In this case, can we
>> please remove what is there currently in log4j-api?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Bruce Brouwer
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>


-- 
Matt Sicker <[email protected]>

Reply via email to