Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:27:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Matt Sicker (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12696750.1393099332944.180.1393802840585@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12696750.1393099332944@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12696750.1393099332944@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-547) Update LoggerStream API
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-547?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13917603#comment-13917603 ] 

Matt Sicker commented on LOG4J2-547:
------------------------------------

For the streaming interface? Sure, it makes sense as part of the normal API. The OSGi bundles, however, are meant to be split up into several JARs. It doesn't affect you if you just use log4j-core outside of an OSGi environment. For OSGi users, though, it would be nice to only have to load the bundles relevant to your configuration needs.

> Update LoggerStream API
> -----------------------
>
>                 Key: LOG4J2-547
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-547
>             Project: Log4j 2
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: API
>    Affects Versions: 2.0-rc1
>            Reporter: Matt Sicker
>            Assignee: Ralph Goers
>             Fix For: 2.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-PrintStream-API-update.patch, Add_caller_info_tests.patch, log4j2-loggerStream.patch
>
>
> I've got some ideas on how to improve the LoggerStream idea that I added a little while ago. The main thing I'd like to do is extract an interface from it, rename the default implementation to SimpleLoggerStream (part of the SimpleLogger stuff), and allow log4j implementations to specify a different implementation if desired.
> In doing this, I'm not sure where specifically I'd prefer the getStream methods to be. Right now, it's in Logger, but really, it could be in LoggerContext instead. I don't think I should be required to get a Logger just to get a LoggerStream.
> Now if only the java.io package used interfaces instead of classes. This would be so much easier to design!


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org