Now that I'm looking at this, what's the point of all the methods that take a FQCN instead of having just the ones in ExtendedLogger? I'm not sure why we didn't just use a field in AbstractLogger in the first place.
On 9 September 2014 19:14, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm making some changes to log4j-jul to reduce redundant time spent > constructing a LogRecord that I don't even want to use most of the time. > However, the ExtendedLogger interface (which I need to use at the very > least so that I can set the fqcn to java.util.logging.Logger) only provides > a single version of logMessage (unlike AbstractLogger which has a bunch), > and several methods like catching(), throwing(), etc., all depend on > protected methods in AbstractLogger that I'd rather not re-implement. It > would be nice if I could just call the Logger methods I need, but they all > get called with the wrong fqcn. > > Can we use a non-static final field that contains the fqcn? If I could, > I'd extend AbstractLogger myself, but I already have to extend the JUL > Logger class (should have been an interface, grrr). Thus, I can't rely on > AbstractLogger being the source of all these method calls. Unlike the other > adapters, JUL provides more various logger calls than we even have, and I > don't think ExtendedLogger was written with this scenario in mind. > > I don't think this should be too large an impact of a change. I'm going to > push up a proposal, but feel free to veto it or offer some suggestions! > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
