I would not object to changing SmtpAppender to make it more extendible. Can you tell me more about your use case? SmtpAppender is designed this way because we had a specific usage in mind. By understanding your use case we might be able to improve the design in a way that benefits not just you but other users as well. What do you want to do that you can't do with the current SmtpAppender?
Looks like several changes are required. I am away from my PC and can't judge the details now. Could you raise a feature request Jira and attach a patch that includes all the changes you'd like to make? That might save us some going back and forth. Thanks! Remko On Friday, August 29, 2014, Michael Schall <mike.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your response Remko. > > Looking into this further, I could duplicate the SmtpAppender code as it > really just seems to do plugin work. The bulk of the code is in the > SmtpManager class which is not marked final. The constructor is marked > protected, however it takes a private class (FactoryData). I would also > like to override the sendEvents method, but then I run into issues because > the buffer is private. > > Do these changes seem like an issue? > > Mike > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Looks like this class was made final in January 2013. The commit message > > mentions checkstyle errors. > > What change are you proposing? Would just removing the final keyword from > > the class definition be enough to fulfill your needs? > > > > It may be good to raise this as a feature request in Jira. > > If you need more changes than just making the class non-final, please > > attach a patch with the changes you have in mind. > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Michael Schall <mike.sch...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm upgrading an application to use Log4j2. With our existing > > > implementation we have created a new appender which extends the > > > SMTPAppender. I see the SMTPAppender is a final class now which > prevents > > > me from extending it. I was wondering what the reason for this is? Do > > we > > > really need to re-implement the the entire SMTPAppender (properties, > > > buffering, ...) to extend the appender? > > > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > >
