[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-547?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13916619#comment-13916619
]
Ralph Goers commented on LOG4J2-547:
------------------------------------
After looking at the patch it makes me wonder if we shouldn't just remove the
LoggerStream stuff entirely. At first glance it seems odd and complicated to
have the LoggerStream move into the LoggerContext. After thinking about it I
understand why this is a better approach, but I'm still wondering if there is
any real benefit to supporting LoggerStream vs the cost of maintaining it.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.0
>
> Attachments: 0001-PrintStream-API-update.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
(v6.1.5#6160)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
