[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1181?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15328081#comment-15328081
]
Mikael Ståldal commented on LOG4J2-1181:
----------------------------------------
I am trying to keep this updated with new stuff in 2.6.
Now, the Java Logger interface have four overloads: {{Message}}, {{String}},
{{CharSequence}} and {{Object}}.
The {{CharSequence}} overload was added in 2.6, and it was necessary to keep
the {{String}} overload to maintain binary compatibility.
Is there any other reason for having both {{String}} and {{CharSequence}}, or
would it make sense to have only {{CharSequence}} (in addition to {{Message}}
and {{Object}}) in the Scala API? Backwards compatibility is not an issue since
this is not public yet.
That would mean that all CharSequences, including regular Strings, would go
through {{MessageFactory2.newMessage(CharSequence)}}. Would there be any
drawbacks with that?
[~rem...@yahoo.com], what do you think?
> Scala wrapper for Log4j 2 API
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1181
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1181
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: API
> Affects Versions: 2.4.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6.1
> Reporter: Mikael Ståldal
>
> Scala wrapper for Log4j 2 API which makes use of Scala features like macros
> and string interpolation.
> Inspired from [Typesafe's Scala
> Logging|https://github.com/typesafehub/scala-logging] but should use Log4j 2
> directly and expose its features.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
