At 13:12 22.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >On a more trivial note, when Chainsaw is integrated, will it still be called >Chainsaw?
Oliver proposed org.apache.log4j.chainsaw. So, yes, it will still be called chainsaw. In case you have another name, you'll have to convince Oliver since it is his call to make. Cheers. >-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]>
