I thought about changing the name, but decided against it. There seemed no point in picking another name, and the thought of a package like org.apache.log4j.ui seemed rather bland. As a compromise, I removed the start-up sound though. :-)
Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2002 10:21 > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: An alternative JTable > > > 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
