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