Yes, I would prefer that we make that decision before it is released. Ralph
On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > OK - I ask because it was previously suggested that it just become integrated > with the API. As I said, making it a separate module right now should make it > easier to decide whether that is a good idea or not. > > Sure, for now it's fine. Once we release it though, we probably will not be > able to move it about. Or, if we do move the code from -streams to -api, > we'll have to keep -streams as an empty module at least for 2.x compatibility > until 3.0. > > So we need to make sure we know where we want the code because some aspects > will be set in stone. > > Gary > > > Ralph > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ralph, >> >> Matt merged the code into master this weekend (the new module log4j-streams) >> and I've hacking on it there. >> >> Right now, it's 13 classes (which could be 14 with another refactoring) and >> the jar is 34,588 bytes. >> >> The 2.1-SNAPSHOT API jar is 124,401 bytes. >> >> It looks like the solution is fairly complete WRT covering many of streams >> and writers. >> >> The original author should really opine on completeness though. >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Gary, >> >> How many classes is it and how much of an impact would it have on the API if >> it was merged there? Can you provide a link to to the branch again? >> >> Ralph >> >> On Sep 2, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi All: >>> >>> This is a vague plan proposal for the new log4-streams module: >>> >>> - Clean up ALL of the current log4-streams code, add features, tweak >>> features, remove features, bang it, tap it, test it. I do not know what is >>> in progress in all of the classes/tests. Matt? Bruce? >>> - Once the code is all good, which it seems to be ATM, the patch was >>> excellent, discuss how much of it we want to release for 2.1. >>> -- all of it, not a burden due to size since it is a new module >>> -- only was is needed to support PrintWriter and PrintStream, which is >>> the minimum IMO. >>> -- something in the middle: please outline. >>> -- Document it. >>> >>> In a perfect world, I would hope we could settle this in one, two or three >>> weeks or so, and then document and release 2.1 in keeping with RERO if Matt >>> is still willing and able to RM. >>> >>> Matt has mentioned in a separate thread considering a 2.0.3 release which, >>> if he goes through with, should probably not include the new streaming >>> module. I would prefer we concentrate on 2.1 instead of a 2.0.3 but I am >>> biased since I do not have bugs in 2.0.2 that need fixing ASAP. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Gary >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> 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 > > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > 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
