logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Modules
Date Sat, 01 Oct 2016 02:15:15 GMT
Can anyone send a link to the release procedures?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Oct 2016, at 2:31, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> I would have a “core” project and an “extras”, “extensions” or some other
name.  They are all already separate jars. I just want to split them out because they don’t
(or shouldn’t) change nearly as often as the core stuff - although we may get to the point
where core is pretty stable and we are actually adding to the extensions more than we are
working on core. 
> 
> If you look at Maven it has every plugin in its own project.  I am not really looking
for that. I am just looking for ways to make the release process less time consuming.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Increased modularity is the OSGi way, but it's also a hard thing to convince people
of. I've met many developers (notably Spring fanboys) that are still in a monolithic classpath
mindset of "why bother splitting this up?"
>> 
>> Anyways, Ralph, are you proposing spinning out the non-core stuff into a single Logging
Services project, or multiple ones that can be released as needed?
>> 
>>> On 30 September 2016 at 12:05, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Right, hence this thread ;-) I am not hot about having multiple builds FYIW.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh wait, Ralph is talking about something else entirely.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:58, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think log4j-nosql could be merged into log4j-core.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 11:50, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> Ralph recently mentions that he'd like some modules removed while
Matt mentioned merging some back into Core.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Shall we discuss this on the ML instead of Jira?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I could also see doing an uber jar (mod the mutually exclusive jars)
and reorging the system with a smaller core (everything except appenders), an all-appenders
module, and/or what some folks have mentioned: one module per appender (yikes!) 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What are all the options we should consider?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Personally and for the current projects I have involved in, an uber
jar with optional deps is the simplest to deal with. If I had to do an app for a light bulb,
I'd think differently ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Let's leave Java 9 modules out of the discussion!)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 

Mime
View raw message