logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Small addition to API suggestion.
Date Tue, 02 Sep 2014 03:03:36 GMT
Scratch that. I'm going to approach this a different way. The
implementation in log4j-1.2-api is a bit different.


On 1 September 2014 21:42, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh man, should I make log4j-jdk depend only on log4j-api then? That limits
> functionality. No support for setLevel(), getParent(), plus it limits the
> ability to add support for Handler classes in the future (I already added
> support for JUL's Filter interface).
>
> The duplicate code is also in log4j-1.2-api. Here's a snippet:
>
>     private static final Map<LoggerContext, ConcurrentMap<String, Logger>>
> CONTEXT_MAP =
>         new WeakHashMap<LoggerContext, ConcurrentMap<String, Logger>>();
>
> I'll refactor this one, too, so you can see it all together in the
> LOG4J2-608 branch.
>
>
> On 1 September 2014 21:26, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree. We already get comaints that the log4j 1.2 bridge requires
>> core. Keeping it separate allows for other implementations. Frankly, I'm
>> not sure the code Matt is talking about is a big enough deal to bother
>> refactoring it.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't looked at the code (don't know how much duplicate code we're
>> talking about), but in general I would prefer putting shared logic in core,
>> to keep the published api as small as possible. All the bridge modules need
>> core to do useful work anyway...
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2014/09/02, at 5:50, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes exactly. It would be either do that, or make log4j-slf4j-impl and
>> log4j-jcl depend on log4j-core. I'm not actually sure why they don't
>> already depend on core other than the fact that they can get away without
>> using it.
>>
>>
>> On 1 September 2014 15:40, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So are you suggesting we put the new code in the API SPI package and not
>>> in core to avoid dragging in the core jar?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Matt Sicker
>>> Date:09/01/2014 14:16 (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: Log4J Developers List
>>> Subject: Small addition to API suggestion.
>>>
>>> I'm working on the JDK/JUL bridge again, and I noticed that there's a
>>> bit of code duplication occurring in log4j-slf4j-impl as well as log4j-jcl.
>>> This duplication is further duplicated in log4j-jdk which I'm working on
>>> right now.
>>>
>>> The duplication is making a weak hash map of LoggerContext to
>>> ConcurrentMap<String, L> where L is some external logger class. What I'm
>>> proposing is a simple SPI class I've temporarily called
>>> ExternalLoggerContextRegistry<L>. The purpose of this interface is to
>>> provide a standardized way to keep track of external loggers that are
>>> bridged with Log4j loggers.
>>>
>>> I'll push this work into a branch called LOG4J2-608 which is the JDK
>>> logging bridge ticket. Class names are obviously not final. I wanted to put
>>> this in core instead of api, but the bridges all use just the API.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message