Glad to hear it. With the duplicate OSGi modules gone, now it doesn't seem
so bad to add more modularity.
On 30 April 2014 20:37, Ralph Goers wrote:
> That makes a lot of sense to me
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Bruce Brouwer
> wrote:
>
> Can we agree to pull out jp
That makes a lot of sense to me
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Bruce Brouwer wrote:
>
> Can we agree to pull out jpa and jms?
>
> As for web, I know there was some discussion on how we could not register a
> shutdown hook. If we broke out log4j-web, maybe we could make it
Can we agree to pull out jpa and jms?
As for web, I know there was some discussion on how we could not register a
shutdown hook. If we broke out log4j-web, maybe we could make it as simple
as registering a shutdown hook if log4j-web is not included, but if
log4j-web was included, the shutdown hook
I mean I split off log4j-streams and put it in a branch. It being the
streams module.
The web stuff actually makes sense to keep in core. JPA and JMS should
probably be in their own modules. The syslog stuff could be at least in its
own packages but still in log4j-core. I'm unsure about the JSON/Y
What do you mean “you took care of it?” jpa, jms, web as well as the json and
yaml support are still in core. I don’t know that we have agreed to move them
out yet.
Ralph
On Apr 29, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I took care of it and added it to the experimental branch in svn (along
I took care of it and added it to the experimental branch in svn (along
with a log4j-camel module I was working on).
On 29 April 2014 18:18, Bruce Brouwer wrote:
> Was there any support in creating any of these new modules?
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruce Brouwer wrote:
>
>> I'll p
Was there any support in creating any of these new modules?
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Bruce Brouwer wrote:
> I'll put together a list of things that I think could be pulled out of
> log4j-core because they are integrations with other tools. Go ahead and
> throw darts, that's what my list
I'll put together a list of things that I think could be pulled out of
log4j-core because they are integrations with other tools. Go ahead and
throw darts, that's what my list is for.
* log4j-jms
* log4j-mail
* log4j-web
* log4j-jpa
* log4j-mongodb
* log4j-couchdb
Some more questionable ones to p
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I agree with all that as well. Part of the "no more modules" problem comes
> from all the unnecessary OSGi modules. I'll be deleting those soon as I'm
> porting over the OSGi metadata to the appropriate modules so that extra
> parallel module
I agree with all that as well. Part of the "no more modules" problem comes
from all the unnecessary OSGi modules. I'll be deleting those soon as I'm
porting over the OSGi metadata to the appropriate modules so that extra
parallel modules are unneeded.
On 17 April 2014 23:48, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with you completely. In fact, the items you have specifically
identified are where I would start. Are there more?
Ralph
On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Bruce Brouwer wrote:
> This discussion about having modules or not having modules keeps coming up
> and I see different opinions here
This discussion about having modules or not having modules keeps coming up
and I see different opinions here on the log4j team. Generally, the
argument of "please, no more modules" has won. I wanted to present my
perspective to see if I can sway anyone's opinion.
There are plenty of reasons why pr
Done. Deleted the two modules after branching to branches/experimental.
On 17 April 2014 12:33, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Thanks, Ralph. I'll move the experimental code to a feature branch.
>
>
> On 17 April 2014 12:27, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
>> If you want to retroactively create a branch, and you
Thanks, Ralph. I'll move the experimental code to a feature branch.
On 17 April 2014 12:27, Paul Benedict wrote:
> If you want to retroactively create a branch, and you're doing Eclipse,
> simply show the project's SVN history; then select create a branch at the
> revision you want to split fro
If you want to retroactively create a branch, and you're doing Eclipse,
simply show the project's SVN history; then select create a branch at the
revision you want to split from.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Google “svn move”.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:33 AM
Google “svn move”.
Ralph
On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I know how to create one, but not retroactively.
>
>
> On 17 April 2014 10:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Creating a branch in subversion is trivial. A quick google would give you the
> answer to that.
>
>
I know how to create one, but not retroactively.
On 17 April 2014 10:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Creating a branch in subversion is trivial. A quick google would give you
> the answer to that.
>
> Everyone - Do we already have a sandbox?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Matt Si
Matt,
Creating a branch in subversion is trivial. A quick google would give you the
answer to that.
Everyone - Do we already have a sandbox?
Ralph
On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I'm not very good at subversion. I just put it in the trunk. If someone could
> move it to a
I'm not very good at subversion. I just put it in the trunk. If someone
could move it to a branch, that would be great. Same goes for the
experimental log4j-camel module I started yesterday.
On 17 April 2014 06:49, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Now I am confused. I thought we decided to keep this in a
19 matches
Mail list logo
