On Apr 30, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > On 30/04/2010 3:24 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> Generally when I don't reply it isn't because I love the idea. > > I gathered as much. > > > I can't think of any use cases where I'd want to construct a logging > > event that way. It also would seem that you would be taking what is > > currently a structure private to Logback and making it public as it > > would make no sense for SLF4J to have one LoggingEvent and Logback to > > have another. > > Building a LoggingEvent prior to calling org.slf4j.Logger avoids > adding new methods to the Logger interface in order to keep it sane. > > > In short, it doesn't really solve what Joern and I have been looking > > for with support for the Message and doesn't provide much value that I > > can see. > > Given that it solves the method population explosion problem, > LoggingEvent can be considered as a prerequisite to to the addition of > the Message interface. >
So instead of adding new methods to Logger you will add them to LoggingEvent. That helps how? Ralph _______________________________________________ slf4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev
