Here are my comments:

1 - We should leave in support for configurable column names.  There are folks out 
there already writing logging events to tables - and likely using this table or tables 
as a common logging infrastructure in their enterprise across systems.  Allowing 
JDBCAppender to write events to existing tables is a valid  use case.  If the goal is 
to provide a simple configuration, maybe we could add a 'useDefaultColumnNames' param 
and support those columns in the appender by default.

2 - Is there a reason we couldn't include both and get feedback from folks during the 
alpha phase as to which they prefer, or maybe Danko and Ray could work together to 
combine the best parts of both appenders into one?

I think it's great that we have two options and I'd like to get some 'real world' 
feedback on their respective benefits before we decide to nix one or the other.

Scott


-----Original Message-----
From:   Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Mon 4/26/2004 2:02 PM
To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:     
Subject:        PreparedStatementAppender vs. JDBCAppenderPlus

After studying both PreparedStatementAppender vs. JDBCAppenderPlus, I would 
like to build on mostly PreparedStatementAppender for the DBAppender to be 
included in the next version of log4j.

My preference goes to PreparedStatementAppender over JDBCAppenderPlus 
because of its simplicity although it maybe purportedly less flexible.

I think PreparedStatementAppender could be further simplified if we assumed 
fixed table columns. Is there any real advantage in allowing variation in 
the column names?  We don't allow any flexibility when using XMLLayout, why 
should we allow variation in the column names when writing to a DB? 
Flexibility without a real-world use case does not seem wise to me... Is 
there a use case where flexibility for the table columns would make sense?

By the way, when inserting events into the database, we can ensure that the 
primary key for each row is sequential. When reading from the database, a 
db receiver could insert the primary key into the properties under the key 
'pkey'. This should allow us to efficiently compare events coming from a db.
(I am assuming that an event will be inserted into a single table. Things 
get more complicated if one starts playing with one-to-many relationship 
between an event and its MDC and/or properties map.)


-- 
Ceki Gülcü

      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp  



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




<<winmail.dat>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to