logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Log4J 2
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:40:30 GMT
Is support for the concept of an event sink (receivers) going to be
straightforward to implement using log4j2's configuration support?

I just want to make sure we are covering our bases there.  It would be
great to have explicit support for receivers, the same as we have for
appenders.

For the socketappender, can it be configured to be multicast?  If so, it
would be good to be able to provide in the interface that was going to be
used.

There are of course other appenders (the reverse-connect sockethubappender,
for example), and the other network-based appenders which can probably be
replaced by this single socket appender if it were beefed up a bit.

Scott

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> On 2012-02-06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> As you may be aware I have been working on Log4j 2 for about 2 years
>
> now.  It now consists of a fairly large body of code with fairly
>
> decent documentation. I feel it is ready to come out of my
>
> experimental branch and onto its own main branch where others will
>
> hopefully feel more inclined to participate.
>
>
> For the benefit of the log4(X != j) communities, can you give some sort
> of elevator pitch for log4j 2.0?  What is different?  Given that the
> other projects around here have followed the 1.x model, it will be good
> to know what you considered good or bad of the "old" approach.
>
> Don't hesitate to send me to some sort of overview document, I admit I
> haven't looked for one, yet.
>
>
> You can find the latest documentation at
> http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/
>
> Ralph
>

Mime
View raw message