Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-22 Thread Ceki Gülcü
On 21/01/2010 1:59 PM, Rü wrote: Ceki Gulcu wrote: You are not forced to use %m / %msg / %message in your conversion pattern. I even replace the MessageConverter with my own ExtendedMessageConverter. But that still means, that I'll have to do all the parsing of the formatting anchors and th

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-21 Thread
Hi Ceki, Ceki Gulcu wrote: > > You are not forced to use %m / %msg / %message in your conversion pattern. > I even replace the MessageConverter with my own ExtendedMessageConverter. But that still means, that I'll have to do all the parsing of the formatting anchors and things for myself! I'd

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-21 Thread
Hi Ralph, I thought that you'd be the second one to reply ;-))) rgoers wrote: > > In reality this is the only good way to do what you are asking for. As > Ceki has pointed out, changing the message formatting for a "standard" > message creates endless problems since many components all use the

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-20 Thread Ceki Gülcü
Hello, As far as the requirements you have described, assuming you are using PatternLayout to format the output, you can easily create your own conversion specifier (see [1]) to format the message according to your wishes. You are not forced to use %m / %msg / %message in your conversion pattern.

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-20 Thread Ralph Goers
FWIW, I've implemented Joern's proposal at http://github.com/rgoers/slf4j and http://github.com/rgoers/logback. The impact on SLF4J is minimal. In SLF4J I added a message package where the support is encapsulated. Since Logback's client API is SLF4J the new methods have to be implemented there.

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-20 Thread
Hi Joern, Joern Huxhorn-2 wrote: > > It's possible to provide the new API by wrapping the old one (I've > prepared exactly that already) but implementing it "natively" would enable > Appenders (in case of Logback) to work on Messages instead of Strings, > opening up lots of new opportunities. >

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-20 Thread Joern Huxhorn
On 20.01.2010, at 14:36, Rü wrote: Hi Joern, Joern Huxhorn-2 wrote: I'd be happy if you could take a few minutes and check out my proposal. You where kidding, right?!? "a few minutes"... well, I still did take a look. Nice proposal and it's good to know that there might be some t

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-20 Thread
Hi Joern, Joern Huxhorn-2 wrote: > > I'd be happy if you could take a few minutes and check out my proposal. > You where kidding, right?!? "a few minutes"... well, I still did take a look. Nice proposal and it's good to know that there might be some things like that coming. Passing your own M

Re: [logback-dev] MessageFormatter

2010-01-18 Thread Joern Huxhorn
On 18.01.2010, at 13:39, Ruediger zu Dohna wrote: Hi! Logback has two levels of formatting: One for the complete log entry and one for the log message itself. While it's flexible with the first, it's restrictive with the second, as the MessageFormatter class is right now a static-methods