Ceki, I re-read more carefully, and yes, it does make sense.
On a more trivial note, when Chainsaw is integrated, will it still be called Chainsaw? -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:12 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: RE: An alternative JTable At 10:48 22.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: > >2) apply the filters on e. If e is filtered out, then no further > >processing is necessary. Otherwise, insert e into B, then invoke > >fireUptadeTable() method. > >One feature of Chainsaw that I really like is the ability to retroactively >apply a filter to received events. So, if you don't have a buffer that >contains all of the events, this current feature will be much less useful. >All of the events will not be present for the new filter. And I find it >really useful when trying to track stuff down. That's what buffer A is for. It contains all the events. Buffer B contains the events after filtering. Does that make sense? -- Ceki My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
