I agree on the generic approach. While there’s a LogEvent interface in log4j2, it would probably make sense for Chainsaw to define its own DTOs and such. -- Matt Sicker
> On Dec 26, 2021, at 15:50, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Scott has been sort of maintaining Chainsaw on his own for years. I am sure > he would love new energy in the project. > > I think isolating it from any logging framework implementation would be a > good thing. > > Ralph > >> On Dec 26, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Robert Middleton <rmiddle...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I've been looking into Chainsaw to remove Log4j1, since that is rather >> obsolete at this point. Unfortunately, Chainsaw is closely tied to >> Log4j1, as it seems that what happens is when it receives events from >> a source, it sends the messages to a custom LoggerRepository with a >> custom appender that will then show the log messages. >> >> There are also a handful of classes from the log4j1 extras package >> that are used as well, such as Rule. >> >> It seems to me that the proper way to do this then is to: >> * Copy any of the log4j1 extras classes we need into Chainsaw >> * Define an internal representation of log messages so that we don't >> depend on the log4j1 LoggingEvent class(perhaps a modified version of >> the log4j1 LoggingEvent) >> * Refactor the code so that when a log event comes in, we simply push >> it to whatever tab we want to see it on, instead of indirectly via >> log4j1. >> * Create a custom Appender for log4j2 so that we can still see >> internal Chainsaw messages within Chainsaw, and convert internal log >> messages to log4j2. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Robert Middleton >> >
