Hi Ceki,
On 12/4/2008 2:33 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> The point here is not comparing implementations but to have API
> convergence. It is less a technical matter (there not an ounce of
> doubt that it can be done with good results) than a question of
> collective will of log4j committers and log4j u
Curt Arnold wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello Ralph,
Thank for you for your reply. Logback as the basis for log4j 2.0 is a
larger step than what I had in mind. Implementation of the SLF4J API
directly in log4j is a low-hanging fruit but having a significant
positive
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello Ralph,
Thank for you for your reply. Logback as the basis for log4j 2.0 is a
larger step than what I had in mind. Implementation of the SLF4J API
directly in log4j is a low-hanging fruit but having a significant
positive impact on the java co
Hello Scott,
There are several reasons. First, Strings are immutable while objects
are not. Second, since everything is an object in Java, when there are
several variants of a printing method with the same name (overloaded
methods), having object as the first parameter creates too much
ambiguity
Hello Ralph,
Thank for you for your reply. Logback as the basis for log4j 2.0 is a
larger step than what I had in mind. Implementation of the SLF4J API
directly in log4j is a low-hanging fruit but having a significant
positive impact on the java community, by virtue of de facto
standardization.
Scott Deboy skrev den 04-12-2008 05:22:
I'd like to understand why the Logger trace/debug etc. base methods take a string instead of an object.
I'd like to think there's usefulness in supporting something like
ObjectRenderer or ReflectionPolicy/MapPolicy+RewriteAppender - supporting only
st
