On Apr 28, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Only comment I can think of after looking at the code is that the
sub-layout elements (logger, priority, messageLayout etc) don't
quite make senses to me as 'layout's. they are really
LayoutElements rather than a complete layout, but given one _might_
want to simply have a layout of only one element, your approach
does mean you could use a low-level layout. It's just the names of
the classes I guess.
A traditional PatternLayout and PatternConverter functionally do the
same thing, but there is a perceived difference. They should have a
consistent base interface so programatically they could be treated
the same and share the same synchronization and composing services.
I would not have a problem renaming the sub-layout elements to
something like SourceFileNameConverter. "PatternConverter" is over-
specification since the same Converters could be used outside of a
PatternLayout.
Any reason to choose LogRecord as the name of the interface rather
than come up with a distinct name that doesn't use something from
the jul framework? (there's no reason to use log4j LoggingEvent
either).
Paul
Probably should be renamed since it did get annoying when both were
in scope. It would also be good to avoid conflict with LoggingEvent,
so the obvious choices are LoggingRecord and LogEvent. I'd prefer
LoggingRecord. I think it is probably best to choose an existing jul
name for methods since the Java naming cops likely did a pretty
through review and we can link to the platform Javadoc for
elaboration when the concepts are identical.
I expect to add an interface along the lines of
org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler which will be passed in to most non-trivial
methods (including being added to the existing Layout methods).
Probably call it something like ExceptionMonitor since it would not
have semantics like the o.a.l.ErrorHandler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
