And that syntax still seems bizarre to me. A logger is not an attribute of a Level.
Flogger’s API, at least what is shown on the single page that was linked, looks reasonable to me and shouldn’t be hard to bolt on to what we already have. Ralph > On Apr 25, 2018, at 10:47 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > If we are considering new APIs, I still like what I proposed a long time > ago in a branch somewhere based on levels. Something like: > > Level.WARN.log(logger, ...) > > This avoids having a gazillion new method whenever we want to add a new > kind of method (or a new level.) > > Gary > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> https://google.github.io/flogger/ >> >> While I'm skeptical about the garbage generated by the API (I'd hope escape >> analysis optimizes them away), it's pretty interesting. The not so >> interesting part is that it's yet another library. Perhaps we could offer a >> similar API either in log4j-api or as an add-on api module (similar to >> log4j-iostreams). >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>
