Re: java.util.logging

[Sascha Brawer]

Brian,

I am extremely glad that you are interested in discussing the API and our
respective implementations.  Also, I totally agree with what you wrote
about the advantages of working together.  So, I am very much looking
forward to doing this.

An administrative question: Do people really want copies of our
discussion on the address@hidden mailing list? I am not sure it will
be of interest to everyone involved with GNU Classpath.  What about
taking the discussion somewhere else, e.g. to your javalogging-
address@hidden list (which is archived as well)?


>[differences in object code size: because of identifier names?]

Nope, we use the same naming style. One big difference is MemoryHandler
(6589 bytes [including MemoryHandler.RingBuffer] vs. 1899 bytes).  This
is a place where my implementation is simpler (and it will be interesting
to discuss the respective advantages and disadvantages).  Another example
is LogManager -- I don't have something like your
LogManager.OrderedProperties (966 bytes).  Probably, my code is buggy
here -- and I would not have thought about this bug without having seen
your (presumably correct) implementation. So, my code will have to grow
in order to do the right thing.

-- Sascha

PS: I won't be able to do much for the next week or so, so please don't
think I've lost interest if you don't hear from me immediately. I'll be back.