On 2017-11-21 17:06, Matt Sicker wrote:
This could present an opportunity to standardize some of the log4j-core
APIs that other applications may need as well.
Sounds like a good idea.
On 21 November 2017 at 04:53, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> I also think that we shouldn't consider Chainsaw to be part of, or a
> subproject of, Log4j. It should be its own project (within Apache Logging
> Services).
>
I believe that's how it's treated already. It's directly linked
Could you go through the Chainsaw codebase and remove all unused/
obsolete stuff in there?
Preferrably also stuff that will be obsolete when we have migrated to
away from Log4j 1.
In a separate branch for now.
On 2017-11-20 23:17, Scott Deboy wrote:
Awesome!
Re: appenders:
We went
I also think that we shouldn't consider Chainsaw to be part of, or a
subproject of, Log4j. It should be its own project (within Apache
Logging Services).
And we should try to not couple it too tightly with Log4j 2. It can
depend on both log4j-api and log4j-core, and use classes like LogEvent
But what about DBAppender, MulticastAppender, etc? Are those needed in
the Chainsaw codebase?
On 2017-11-20 23:17, Scott Deboy wrote:
Awesome!
Re: appenders:
We went through a couple of code re-orgs back in 2011 and 2013, some
stuff was moved out of Chainsaw to apache-log4j-extras. Looks
Awesome!
Re: appenders:
We went through a couple of code re-orgs back in 2011 and 2013, some
stuff was moved out of Chainsaw to apache-log4j-extras. Looks like
some was left behind.
You can define Chainsaw as an appender yourself - so the UI starts if
it's in the log4j xml config file.
We should complete the release of the current code before merging any of
this stuff, but we can start this work in a branch while waiting for the
release.
On 2017-11-20 21:41, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
I took a look at the Chainsaw source code, and tried to remove its
dependency on Log4j 1 and