The master branch is already on Java 8.

Gary

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 12:23 Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected] wrote:

> AsyncAppender can very well leverage this. Am I missing
> something? For the ones that do not implement these two
> methods, we can define a default interface method for
> them -- given log4j3 will target Java 8+.
>
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:27 AM Ralph Goers <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:30 PM Volkan Yazıcı <
> [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey Gary,
> > >>
> > >> *Package Name*
> > >>
> > >> Once every couple of months I found myself helping out people
> > >> for JAR Hell problems since they included wrong Log4j artifact.
> > >> The artifact and package names of Log4j 1 and Log4j 2 are
> > >> pretty similar looking. Hence I really encourage you to explicitly
> > >> state the version in artifact and package names. For instance,
> > >> log4j3-core and org.apache.logging.log4j3, etc. It goes without
> > >> saying, this will also aid SEO too, which is a pain right now.
> > >>
> > >
> > > IMO, we should change the package names and artifact IDs to contains a
> > "3"
> > > postfix, like we did in HttpComponents for version 5, so probably
> > > "log4j-core3", "log4j-api3" and so on. To be discussed...
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> *Allowing Batches in Appender Interface*
> > >>
> > >> Is it also possible to extend the Appender interface such that in
> > >> addition to append(LogEvent), batched append(LogEvent[]),
> > >> append(LogEvent[], int offset, int length) are allowed as well?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sounds OK, PRs welcome. Ralph, any thoughts?
> >
> > What would call the append(LogEvent[]) method? Nothing in the Logger
> > interface or implementation currently would.  I suppose it could be
> useful
> > when one Appender is wrapped with another, but then wouldn’t every
> Appender
> > that can wrap other Appenders need to be modified to support this?
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to