[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-547?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13943823#comment-13943823
 ] 

Bruce Brouwer commented on LOG4J2-547:
--------------------------------------

So, I put all this stream stuff in package {{org.apache.logging.log4j.streams}} 
inside the log4j-api project. It seems awkward to me to put these tests inside 
log4j-core when the code it is testing is inside log4j-api. To me, it seems 
like another reason to pull this into its own artifact called log4j-streams. 
This way there is nothing related to these streams in log4j-api, and the 
log4j-streams artifact could pull in log4j-core as a test dependency for the 
purpose of making this caller information test. 

I'm going to make some separate caller-info test classes inside log4j-core, but 
in the {{org.apache.logging.log4j.streams}} package (not 
{{org.apache.logging.log4j.*core*.streams}}) just so we can look at what we are 
talking about, but I don't expect things to stay where they are represented in 
my next patch.

> 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, 
> log4j2-547-bbrouwer.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

Reply via email to