Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace log4j.Supplier by jdk’s in non-logging usage #28812

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 24, 2018

Conversation

dnhatn
Copy link
Member

@dnhatn dnhatn commented Feb 24, 2018

This commit replaces org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier by
java.util.function.Supplier in non-logging code. These usages are
neither incorrect nor wrong but rather than accidental. I think our
intention was to use the JDK's Supplier in these places.

This commit replaces `org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier` by
`java.util.function.Supplier` in non-logging code. These usages are
neither incorrect nor wrong but rather than accidental. I think our
intention was to use the JDK's Supplier in these places.
Copy link
Member

@rjernst rjernst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@dnhatn
Copy link
Member Author

dnhatn commented Feb 24, 2018

Thanks @rjernst.

@dnhatn dnhatn merged commit f1a94de into elastic:master Feb 24, 2018
@dnhatn dnhatn deleted the replace-supplier branch February 24, 2018 19:28
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2018
This commit replaces `org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier` by
`java.util.function.Supplier` in non-logging code. These usages are
neither incorrect nor wrong but rather than accidental. I think our
intention was to use the JDK's Supplier in these places.
@jasontedor
Copy link
Member

Thanks @dnhatn.

sebasjm pushed a commit to sebasjm/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2018
This commit replaces `org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier` by
`java.util.function.Supplier` in non-logging code. These usages are
neither incorrect nor wrong but rather than accidental. I think our
intention was to use the JDK's Supplier in these places.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants