You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> on 2011/09/01 13:13:52 UTC
Companions -> Chainsaw?
Scott,
Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
to move the companions code into chainsaw.
What do you think on that?
I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
having companions.
Please comment, when you can :-)
Cheers
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
> to move the companions code into chainsaw.
> What do you think on that?
>
> I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
> having companions.
>
> Please comment, when you can :-)
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
Did a quick review of receivers and there are a few things in there that are general purpose that would be better to move into log4j while most everything else would move directly into Chainsaw. Specifically, the org.apache.log4j.rewrite package and org.apache.log4j.helpers.UtilLoggingLevel look like they might have a better to have in log4j.
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/rewrite/package-summary.html
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/companions/receivers/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/helpers/UtilLoggingLevel.html
I think OSGi does not like to have a package to span multiple jars, so it might make sense to tweak the package names so that Chainsaw.jar does not define any classes in packages that are already defined in log4j.jar. That likely would have also been an issue if we proceeded to do a companion release. All the package names came from the backport of the log4j 1.3 code and there was no thought of the OSGi in the package naming.
I think that I'd be able to do some quick surgery to "svn mv" the code from component and receivers into the proper places and fix up the import statements over the weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think pulling in component would make sense...no one else probably uses
> it. Receivers? I suppose if they were built as a separate jar that'd be
> fine too, I have no idea who uses them if anyone.
We can always cut them out again if somebody wants it - which is very unlikely.
If you are fine with moving them to chainsaw... do you need any help?
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> At this point I'm only focusing only on 2.0. I've been wondering if I
>> should create a subproject for chainsaw or if it should remain separate. I
>> already moved a large part of extras in as a core part of the functionality.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>> > Scott,
>> >
>> > Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
>> > to move the companions code into chainsaw.
>> > What do you think on that?
>> >
>> > I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
>> > having companions.
>> >
>> > Please comment, when you can :-)
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Christian
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
I think pulling in component would make sense...no one else probably uses
it. Receivers? I suppose if they were built as a separate jar that'd be
fine too, I have no idea who uses them if anyone.
Scott
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> At this point I'm only focusing only on 2.0. I've been wondering if I
> should create a subproject for chainsaw or if it should remain separate. I
> already moved a large part of extras in as a core part of the functionality.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
> > to move the companions code into chainsaw.
> > What do you think on that?
> >
> > I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
> > having companions.
> >
> > Please comment, when you can :-)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Christian
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a number of people looking for resolution on the code signing cert
> question (Eclipse plugins, maven artifacts, etc). I'll file a Jira issue.
> Our case is relatively straightforward - hopefully infra can automate it so
> we can send them binaries/drop binaries into a folder, along with a link to
> the vote and pgp signing info and they can sign the artifacts. We shall
> see.
Sounds excellent. Yesterday I asked at the IRC channel, but no response.
Can you proceed with the downloadable release while the Webstart
"release" is postboned?
Christian
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> OK understood.
>>
>> Not sure were do ask, but maybe infra has an idea if such a thing
>> exists. If not, we might ask the board if we can buy something like
>> that
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We need a code signing certificate that is trusted by a root cert auth,
>> > and
>> > use that cert to sign the jars - I would prefer the ASF handle this.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/javaws/developersguide/faq.html
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the
>> >> > 'Java
>> >> > Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
>> >> >
>> >> > To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need
>> >> > to
>> >> > sign
>> >> > the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can
>> >> > initiate
>> >> > socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars
>> >> > are
>> >> > signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a
>> >> > cert
>> >> > for
>> >> > signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
>> >>
>> >> Is any pgp key fine to sign or should it be one with a trusted
>> >> identiy, like "this software was developed by the ASF" and so on?
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
There are a number of people looking for resolution on the code signing cert
question (Eclipse plugins, maven artifacts, etc). I'll file a Jira issue.
Our case is relatively straightforward - hopefully infra can automate it so
we can send them binaries/drop binaries into a folder, along with a link to
the vote and pgp signing info and they can sign the artifacts. We shall
see.
Scott
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> OK understood.
>
> Not sure were do ask, but maybe infra has an idea if such a thing
> exists. If not, we might ask the board if we can buy something like
> that
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We need a code signing certificate that is trusted by a root cert auth,
> and
> > use that cert to sign the jars - I would prefer the ASF handle this.
> >
> > See
> >
> http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/javaws/developersguide/faq.html
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the
> >> > 'Java
> >> > Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
> >> >
> >> > To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need to
> >> > sign
> >> > the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can initiate
> >> > socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars
> are
> >> > signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a
> cert
> >> > for
> >> > signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
> >>
> >> Is any pgp key fine to sign or should it be one with a trusted
> >> identiy, like "this software was developed by the ASF" and so on?
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
OK understood.
Not sure were do ask, but maybe infra has an idea if such a thing
exists. If not, we might ask the board if we can buy something like
that
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We need a code signing certificate that is trusted by a root cert auth, and
> use that cert to sign the jars - I would prefer the ASF handle this.
>
> See
> http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/javaws/developersguide/faq.html
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the
>> > 'Java
>> > Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
>> >
>> > To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need to
>> > sign
>> > the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can initiate
>> > socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars are
>> > signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a cert
>> > for
>> > signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
>>
>> Is any pgp key fine to sign or should it be one with a trusted
>> identiy, like "this software was developed by the ASF" and so on?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
We need a code signing certificate that is trusted by a root cert auth, and
use that cert to sign the jars - I would prefer the ASF handle this.
See
http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/javaws/developersguide/faq.html
Scott
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the
> 'Java
> > Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
> >
> > To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need to
> sign
> > the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can initiate
> > socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars are
> > signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a cert
> for
> > signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
>
> Is any pgp key fine to sign or should it be one with a trusted
> identiy, like "this software was developed by the ASF" and so on?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
> http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the 'Java
> Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
>
> To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need to sign
> the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can initiate
> socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars are
> signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a cert for
> signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
Is any pgp key fine to sign or should it be one with a trusted
identiy, like "this software was developed by the ASF" and so on?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
OK, I'll send out an announcement email and delete after 72 hours if there
are no objections.
Thanks for the help on the web site.
Regarding Web Start, the old old old version of Chainsaw is currently
available via Web Start, signed by Paul Smith a long time ago..available
from the 'download link:
http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/download.html - by clicking on the 'Java
Web Start' link, Chainsaw will download, install and run..
To update the version of Chainsaw we provide via Web Start, we need to sign
the jars, since Chainsaw writes to the local file system, can initiate
socket connections, etc, and Web Start only allows that if the jars are
signed and the person oks the access..It seems Apache should have a cert for
signing jars, instead of having to do this ourselves..
This was brought up a long time ago but I don't believe we ever resolved the
issue.
Scott
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since we never had offiical release of receivers or component, is it ok
> to
> > nuke them from subversion now?
>
> Probably we should make a new mail thread with [ANN] in the subject to
> make sure everybody reads, give 72h and then svn delete
> >
> > Christian, do you mind doing site-related stuff?
>
> Yes, can do it somewhen this week
>
> > I'll update wording on the Chainsaw page and update the screenshots...and
> I
> > think we could be ready soon to vote on a release..
>
> Cool!!
>
> > Not sure what to do about web start...thoughts?
>
> Can you explain, I am not aware on what exactly the question is - sorry
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> > Scott
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Christian,
> >>
> >> Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to
> >> pull them back in to core...
> >>
> >> I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good
> choice.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw
> in
> >>> > svn
> >>> > 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
> >>> > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
> >>>
> >>> we need to update the website, i can help here if you like
> >>>
> >>> > There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now
> (extras)
> >>> > - not
> >>> > sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove
> >>> > companions
> >>> > and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have
> >>> > extras in
> >>> > it?
> >>>
> >>> Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as
> >>> there is no development interest (have not a clue here).
> >>>
> >>> Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with
> >>> extras, as you suggested.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Christian
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Scott
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j
> >>> >> > release
> >>> >> > at
> >>> >> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated
> version
> >>> >> > of
> >>> >> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
> >>> >> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Cheers
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Scott
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy
> >>> >> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location -
> >>> >> >> > when
> >>> >> >> > log4j is
> >>> >> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything
> >>> >> >> > will
> >>> >> >> > still
> >>> >> >> > work.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the
> >>> >> >> new
> >>> >> >> release of log4j, right?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Scott
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> >> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy
> >>> >> >> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core
> >>> >> >> >> > from
> >>> >> >> >> > receivers in
> >>> >> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate
> these
> >>> >> >> >> > classes
> >>> >> >> >> > in
> >>> >> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a
> Chainsaw
> >>> >> >> >> > release.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future.
> >>> >> >> >> Therefore
> >>> >> >> >> I
> >>> >> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is
> only
> >>> >> >> >> 3
> >>> >> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict
> >>> >> >> >> with a
> >>> >> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> > Scott
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy
> >>> >> >> >> > <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >> Definitely!
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >> Scott
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> >> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
> >>> >> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always
> >>> >> >> >> >>> feel
> >>> >> >> >> >>> good,
> >>> >> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> >> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > useful
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bits
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > in
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > to
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > maven
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > project
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > then?
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> attic
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> then
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Christian
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> an
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> --
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>> --
> >>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> >> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since we never had offiical release of receivers or component, is it ok to
> nuke them from subversion now?
Probably we should make a new mail thread with [ANN] in the subject to
make sure everybody reads, give 72h and then svn delete
>
> Christian, do you mind doing site-related stuff?
Yes, can do it somewhen this week
> I'll update wording on the Chainsaw page and update the screenshots...and I
> think we could be ready soon to vote on a release..
Cool!!
> Not sure what to do about web start...thoughts?
Can you explain, I am not aware on what exactly the question is - sorry
Cheers
Christian
> Scott
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Christian,
>>
>> Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to
>> pull them back in to core...
>>
>> I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good choice.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in
>>> > svn
>>> > 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
>>> > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
>>>
>>> we need to update the website, i can help here if you like
>>>
>>> > There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras)
>>> > - not
>>> > sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove
>>> > companions
>>> > and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have
>>> > extras in
>>> > it?
>>>
>>> Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as
>>> there is no development interest (have not a clue here).
>>>
>>> Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with
>>> extras, as you suggested.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Scott
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j
>>> >> > release
>>> >> > at
>>> >> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
>>> >> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Scott
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy
>>> >> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location -
>>> >> >> > when
>>> >> >> > log4j is
>>> >> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything
>>> >> >> > will
>>> >> >> > still
>>> >> >> > work.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the
>>> >> >> new
>>> >> >> release of log4j, right?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Scott
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> >> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy
>>> >> >> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core
>>> >> >> >> > from
>>> >> >> >> > receivers in
>>> >> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
>>> >> >> >> > classes
>>> >> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
>>> >> >> >> > release.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future.
>>> >> >> >> Therefore
>>> >> >> >> I
>>> >> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only
>>> >> >> >> 3
>>> >> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict
>>> >> >> >> with a
>>> >> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Scott
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy
>>> >> >> >> > <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Definitely!
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Scott
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> >> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
>>> >> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always
>>> >> >> >> >>> feel
>>> >> >> >> >>> good,
>>> >> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> >> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > useful
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bits
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > to
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > maven
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > project
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > then?
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> attic
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> then
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Christian
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> an
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> --
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> --
>>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> >> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
Since we never had offiical release of receivers or component, is it ok to
nuke them from subversion now?
Christian, do you mind doing site-related stuff?
I'll update wording on the Chainsaw page and update the screenshots...and I
think we could be ready soon to vote on a release..
Not sure what to do about web start...thoughts?
Scott
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Christian,
>
> Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to pull
> them back in to core...
>
> I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good choice.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in
>> svn
>> > 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
>> > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
>>
>> we need to update the website, i can help here if you like
>>
>> > There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) -
>> not
>> > sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove
>> companions
>> > and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have extras
>> in
>> > it?
>>
>> Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as
>> there is no development interest (have not a clue here).
>>
>> Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with
>> extras, as you suggested.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>> grobmeier@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j
>> release
>> >> > at
>> >> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version
>> of
>> >> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
>> >> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
>> >>
>> >> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
>> >> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location -
>> when
>> >> >> > log4j is
>> >> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything
>> will
>> >> >> > still
>> >> >> > work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
>> >> >> release of log4j, right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Scott
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <
>> scott.deboy@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
>> >> >> >> > receivers in
>> >> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
>> >> >> >> > classes
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
>> >> >> >> > release.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future.
>> Therefore
>> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only
>> 3
>> >> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with
>> a
>> >> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Scott
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> >> > <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Definitely!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Scott
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always
>> feel
>> >> >> >> >>> good,
>> >> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the
>> useful
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bits
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent
>> maven
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > project
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > then?
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> >> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the
>> attic
>> >> >> >> >>> >> then
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> Christian
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> an
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> --
>> >> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> --
>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Christian,
Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to pull
them back in to core...
I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good choice.
Scott
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in
> svn
> > 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
> > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
>
> we need to update the website, i can help here if you like
>
> > There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) -
> not
> > sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove companions
> > and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have extras
> in
> > it?
>
> Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as
> there is no development interest (have not a clue here).
>
> Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with
> extras, as you suggested.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release
> >> > at
> >> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
> >> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
> >> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
> >>
> >> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
> >> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Scott
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when
> >> >> > log4j is
> >> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything
> will
> >> >> > still
> >> >> > work.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
> >> >> release of log4j, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Scott
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <
> scott.deboy@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
> >> >> >> > receivers in
> >> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
> >> >> >> > classes
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
> >> >> >> > release.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future.
> Therefore
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
> >> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with
> a
> >> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Scott
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy
> >> >> >> > <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Definitely!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Scott
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
> >> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel
> >> >> >> >>> good,
> >> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
> >> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful
> >> >> >> >>> >> > bits
> >> >> >> >>> >> > in
> >> >> >> >>> >> > to
> >> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent
> maven
> >> >> >> >>> >> > project
> >> >> >> >>> >> > then?
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the
> attic
> >> >> >> >>> >> then
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> Christian
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
> >> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
> >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> an
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >> --
> >> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in svn
> 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
> hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
we need to update the website, i can help here if you like
> There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) - not
> sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove companions
> and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have extras in
> it?
Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as
there is no development interest (have not a clue here).
Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with
extras, as you suggested.
Cheers
Christian
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release
>> > at
>> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
>> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
>> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
>>
>> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
>> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when
>> >> > log4j is
>> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will
>> >> > still
>> >> > work.
>> >>
>> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
>> >> release of log4j, right?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
>> >> >> > receivers in
>> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
>> >> >> > classes
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
>> >> >> > release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
>> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
>> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Scott
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> > <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Definitely!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Scott
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel
>> >> >> >>> good,
>> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful
>> >> >> >>> >> > bits
>> >> >> >>> >> > in
>> >> >> >>> >> > to
>> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
>> >> >> >>> >> > project
>> >> >> >>> >> > then?
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic
>> >> >> >>> >> then
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> Christian
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
>> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make
>> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw
>> >> >> >>> >> >> an
>> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
>> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> --
>> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> --
>> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in svn
1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions
hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else?
There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) - not
sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove companions
and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have extras in
it?
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release at
> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
>
> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when
> >> > log4j is
> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will
> >> > still
> >> > work.
> >>
> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
> >> release of log4j, right?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Scott
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
> >> >> > receivers in
> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
> >> >> > classes
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
> >> >> > release.
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Scott
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <
> scott.deboy@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Definitely!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Scott
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
> >> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel
> >> >> >>> good,
> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
> >> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful
> bits
> >> >> >>> >> > in
> >> >> >>> >> > to
> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
> >> >> >>> >> > project
> >> >> >>> >> > then?
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic
> >> >> >>> >> then
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Christian
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Scott
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
> >> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw
> >> >> >>> >> >> an
> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release at
> some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
> log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
> standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems
as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today.
Cheers
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when
>> > log4j is
>> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will
>> > still
>> > work.
>>
>> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
>> release of log4j, right?
>>
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
>> >> > receivers in
>> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>> >> >
>> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these
>> >> > classes
>> >> > in
>> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw
>> >> > release.
>> >>
>> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
>> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
>> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>> >>
>> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
>> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Definitely!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Scott
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >>> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel
>> >> >>> good,
>> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits
>> >> >>> >> > in
>> >> >>> >> > to
>> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
>> >> >>> >> > project
>> >> >>> >> > then?
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic
>> >> >>> >> then
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Christian
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > Scott
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold
>> >> >>> >> > <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw
>> >> >>> >> >> an
>> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
>> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> --
>> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release at
some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j
> is
> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will
> still
> > work.
>
> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
> release of log4j, right?
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
> >> > receivers in
> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
> >> >
> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes
> >> > in
> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
> >>
> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
> >>
> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
> >> later log4j which might have the same classes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Scott
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Definitely!
> >> >>
> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
> >> >>
> >> >> Scott
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com
> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
> >> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits
> in
> >> >>> >> > to
> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
> >> >>> >> > project
> >> >>> >> > then?
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Christian
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > Scott
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <
> carnold@apache.org>
> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an
> >> >>> >> >> OSGi
> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> --
> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j is
> released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will still
> work.
But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
release of log4j, right?
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from
>> > receivers in
>> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>> >
>> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes
>> > in
>> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
>>
>> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
>> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
>> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>>
>> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
>> later log4j which might have the same classes
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Definitely!
>> >>
>> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>> >>
>> >> Scott
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >> <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
>> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
>> >>> >> <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in
>> >>> >> > to
>> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
>> >>> >> > project
>> >>> >> > then?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Christian
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Scott
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>
>> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an
>> >>> >> >> OSGi
>> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j is
released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will still
work.
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers
> in
> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
> >
> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in
> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
>
> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
>
> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
> later log4j which might have the same classes
>
>
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Definitely!
> >>
> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
> >>
> >> Thanks for all your help Christian,
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in
> to
> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven
> project
> >>> >> > then?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Christian
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Scott
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an
> OSGi
> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers in
> 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>
> Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in
> Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. Therefore I
am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only 3
classes or so, I would go with duplicating them.
But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict with a
later log4j which might have the same classes
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Definitely!
>>
>> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>>
>> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>>>
>>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
>>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> > <gr...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
>>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project
>>> >> > then?
>>> >>
>>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
>>> >>
>>> >> Christian
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Scott
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
>>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers in
1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in
Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Definitely!
>
> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
>
> Thanks for all your help Christian,
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>>
>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>>
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>> grobmeier@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project
>> >> > then?
>> >>
>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
>> >>
>> >> Christian
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
Definitely!
Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
Thanks for all your help Christian,
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>
> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
> hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project
> >> > then?
> >>
> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
> >>
> >> Christian
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Scott
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
> >> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, moving ahead with removal then
Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
>> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project
>> > then?
>>
>> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
>> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
>> >> package and no need to add additional work.
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
ok, moving ahead with removal then
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project then?
>
> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
>
> Christian
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
> >> package and no need to add additional work.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
> chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project then?
If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the attic then
Christian
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi
>> package and no need to add additional work.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project then?
Scott
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi package
> and no need to add additional work.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi package and no need to add additional work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> At this point I'm only focusing only on 2.0. I've been wondering if I should create a subproject for chainsaw or if it should remain separate. I already moved a large part of extras in as a core part of the functionality.
B/c of Chainsaw2 builds upon log4j2, I think I would create a
subproject. This would make it easier to release Chainsaw version for
a specific log4j2 release
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
>> to move the companions code into chainsaw.
>> What do you think on that?
>>
>> I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
>> having companions.
>>
>> Please comment, when you can :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
At this point I'm only focusing only on 2.0. I've been wondering if I should create a subproject for chainsaw or if it should remain separate. I already moved a large part of extras in as a core part of the functionality.
Ralph
On Sep 1, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Curt had an interesting idea lately, he mentioned it might make sense
> to move the companions code into chainsaw.
> What do you think on that?
>
> I like the idea - less releases, and no other interested parties in
> having companions.
>
> Please comment, when you can :-)
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org