http://www.coralblocks.com/index.php/2014/06/corallog-vs-log4j-latency-comparison/
On 4 August 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have a link? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/08/05, at 10:28, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gmail is telling me about some other framework that is "18x less latency > than Log4J 2.0". I'm surprised that the ads are already out like that! > Looks like competition, guys. ;) > > > On 4 August 2014 20:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the >> 2.0.1 vote that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling is >> that our priority should be to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before adding >> more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize the current features in >> 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features. >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 >>> release, or should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because if >>> we go the 2.1 route of focus, I've got a few branches to merge back >>> together (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that regard) into trunk. >>> >>> As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 >>> branch since we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
