In LogManager, if we call getCanonicalName() instead of getName(), we only get "."s, no "$"s...
How about that? Gary On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Another way to look at this is that instead of calling class.getName() we > would call our own toLoggerName(Class) which would NOT use $ but only use > "."s. > > Gary > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The logger name hierarchy interpretation is handled at the string level, >> not the class level. I don't think the class needs to be passed along as >> there isn't much useful info we can get from the Class instance that we >> can't already figure out from its FQCN. >> >> On 14 August 2017 at 15:56, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > > On Aug 14, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ralph Goers < >> [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Gary Gregory < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> Probably for Ralph: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Right now, it's the LogManager in log4j-api that converts Class >> names >> > >> into >> > >>>> Logger names. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> There is no getLogger(Class) API in the Core LoggerContext. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Should we push down this conversion into Core's LoggerContext? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> It seems the sane thing to do to: >> > >>>> - Avoid making something pluggable in log4j-api >> > >>>> - Avoid making Core parse logger names looking for separators. >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> But that would mean adding two methods to: >> > >>> >> > >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext: >> > >>> >> > >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext.getLogger(Class<?>) >> > >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext.getLogger(Class<?>, >> > >>> MessageFactory) >> > >>> >> > >>> Thoughts? >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> Why does it mean that? >> > >> >> > > >> > > If we want the core to implement converting Class names to Logger >> names, >> > > the Class must be passed down to the Core. Right now the LogManager >> does >> > > that by calling org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext methods. >> > These >> > > methods take only String for the logger name. >> > >> > And that is a problem because….? I am trying to understand why >> > LoggerContext will be required to accept a class name. >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > >
