Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

I think we should focus on splitting into modules now, and worry about repos later. On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Possible modules and names, with the idea that they all depend on log4j-db: > > log4j-db > log4j-db-nosql > log4j-db-jdbc > log4j-db-jpa > > The naming hint

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

I would prefer the modules to be named like this to make names less clumsy: log4j-jdbc log4j-jpa log4j-jms log4j-kafka log4j-zeromq (better than log4j-jeromq) It seems like the proposed log4j-db module would be very small and not have any external dependencies? In that case I suggest we keep that

Looking into 2.7 slower than 2.6

FYI, someone is reporting that 2.7 is 10% slower than 2.6. Please see https://twitter.com/connolly_s/status/805797749211992067 Has anyone seen this? Gary -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

I agree with Mikael here. It would be nice to include the abstract base classes in log4j-core if they're dependency-free, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether to make it its own module. Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split along with the other modules. On 5 December 2016 at 03:30, Mikae

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I would prefer the modules to be named like this to make names less clumsy: > > log4j-jdbc > log4j-jpa > log4j-jms > log4j-kafka > log4j-zeromq (better than log4j-jeromq) > > It seems like the proposed log4j-db module would be very small and

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > I agree with Mikael here. It would be nice to include the abstract base > classes in log4j-core if they're dependency-free, but I don't have a strong > opinion on whether to make it its own module. > > Also, yes, log4j-nosql should be split alo

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

I don't think we should create a new module just to save a single digit number of KB in core. On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > >> I agree with Mikael here. It would be nice to include the abstract base >> classes in log4j

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I don't think we should create a new module just to save a single digit > number of KB in core. > So from your POV, it's all about reducing dependencies? I'm just trying to understand what the landscape is here... Gary > > On Mon, Dec 5,

Re: Looking into 2.7 slower than 2.6

No, but I am wondering if it is due to the stuff Remko has been doing with reducing memory usage. Ralph > On Dec 5, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > FYI, someone is reporting that 2.7 is 10% slower than 2.6. > > Please see https://twitter.com/connolly_s/status/805797749211992067 > <

Re: Looking into 2.7 slower than 2.6

BTW - can you see if you can get Stephen to post his messages here instead of twitter? I find that link very hard to read. Ralph > On Dec 5, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Apache wrote: > > No, but I am wondering if it is due to the stuff Remko has been doing with > reducing memory usage. > > Ralph >

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

By that, I mean the word "nosql". On 5 December 2016 at 11:54, Matt Sicker wrote: > You don't need to include "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use > "nosql" or "sql" as common dependencies (i.e., the abstract classes). > > On 5 December 2016 at 11:23, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

You don't need to include "nosql" in the split modules. I'd only use "nosql" or "sql" as common dependencies (i.e., the abstract classes). On 5 December 2016 at 11:23, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > >> I don't think we should create a new module

Re: Looking into 2.7 slower than 2.6

I asked for Stephen to post to the user's ML. Gary On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Apache wrote: > BTW - can you see if you can get Stephen to post his messages here instead > of twitter? I find that link very hard to read. > > Ralph > > On Dec 5, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Apache wrote: > > No, but

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-1699) Configurable Log File Permissions with PosixFilePermission

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15722889#comment-15722889 ] Matt Sicker commented on LOG4J2-1699: - Improvement would work. We keep a manual chang

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

Too fine grained dependencies will be difficult for users. I like log4j-jdbc log4j-jpa log4j-jms log4j-kafka log4j-zeromq If these share anything I'm okay to keep that in core. Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2016, at 2:54, Matt Sicker wrote: > > You don't need to include "nosql" in the spli

Re: Modules for SQL and MOM/JMS

What about log4j-mongodb and log4j-couchdb? I doubt anyone is using both at the same time. On 5 December 2016 at 18:14, Remko Popma wrote: > Too fine grained dependencies will be difficult for users. I like > > log4j-jdbc > log4j-jpa > log4j-jms > log4j-kafka > log4j-zeromq > > If these share an