Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?

2011-10-02 Thread Scott Deboy
Thanks Christian, Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to pull them back in to core... I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good choice. Scott On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Sc

Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?

2011-10-02 Thread Christian Grobmeier
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy wrote: > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in svn > 1178304.  Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else? we need to update the website,

Re: Companions -> Chainsaw?

2011-10-02 Thread Scott Deboy
OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in svn 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else? There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) - not sure what to

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #11 from Ralph Goers 2011-10-03 02:16:01 UTC --- I agree and have made the suggested changes. If the max is left off it defaults to 10 times the rate. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #10 from John Vasileff 2011-10-03 00:57:30 UTC --- I wonder if it would be easier for end users if the configuration was made with rate instead of burstInterval: float rate; // average number of log statements allowed per secon

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #9 from Ralph Goers 2011-10-02 19:52:01 UTC --- If you've looked at the code you will see that it is using a DelayQueue to control how many log entries can be written. From what I could tell in looking at your code your bucket

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #8 from Chad LaVigne 2011-10-02 17:42:04 UTC --- Thank you for adding this, I thought my contribution might be a lost cause. So it looks like this is basically the same filter except that you no longer define the fill amount, i

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #7 from Chad LaVigne 2011-10-02 17:34:16 UTC --- Hi Ralph, The unit test should work, although it's a little hard to read the results. You should see 100 of 110 info log statements print with the first test, then there's a sec

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45753] Code contribution: BurstFilter for extras

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Goers 2011-10-02 07:26:37 UTC --- I implemented a BurstFilter that behaves a bit differently that yours to the Log4j 2.0 experimental branch. It will behave a bit differently than yours in that it only needs the

Bug report for Log4j [2011/10/02]

2011-10-02 Thread bugzilla
+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

[GUMP@vmgump]: Project logging-log4j-receivers (in module logging-log4j-receivers) failed

2011-10-02 Thread carnold
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project logging-log4j-receivers has an issue affecting its community integration.