[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-547?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13917570#comment-13917570
]
Matt Sicker commented on LOG4J2-547:
------------------------------------
Considering the OSGi support tends to introduce more new modules every time we
do anything with it, I don't think that additional modules are all that big a
deal. It's important that each module does one thing and does it well. For
convenience reasons, it's easy to just add log4j-core to your classpath and not
worry too much, but it's also gotten rather bloated in terms of features when
you look at it from a modular perspective.
When it comes to doing things this late in the game, I was under the impression
that any API changes and such should be all done before 2.0.0.RELEASE (or
whatever it will be called; I like that name for the OSGi version because
RELEASE comes alphabetically after RC, so it's considered a "newer" version
according to OSGi versioning standards as well as Maven). However, adding API
(not changing it, but adding to it) is perfectly fine in 2.x releases according
to the usual semantic versioning standards.
The tl;dr of this is that I'd support holding off introducing the
streaming/java.io API until 2.1. However, if we did that, I would highly
suggest removing the existing PrintStream/LoggerStream functionality to prevent
future API headaches.
> 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
> Assignee: Ralph Goers
> Fix For: 2.0
>
> Attachments: 0001-PrintStream-API-update.patch,
> Add_caller_info_tests.patch, log4j2-loggerStream.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
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
