Hi Ralph, I've looked at the changed you made in relation to RFC 5424. It's quite a significant architectural change. The RFC 5424 route is in the opposite direction of logback where one creates a new module for each new event type. This offers the benefit of type safety but has significant overhead from a packaging pov, whereas the 5424 route has little packaging overhead but omits type safety.
The RFC 5424 approach is not to be discarded. However, I don't think it's a route we should take at this *immediate* juncture. I propose to put it aside for the time being and come back to it, possibly with a vengeance, some time later. BR _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list logback-dev@qos.ch http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
