Yes. Ralph
> On Jun 22, 2019, at 9:54 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would drop prefixes like "at" and "with". > > In you example, if debug logging is disabled, are the follow up calls noops? > > Gary (AFK) > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 11:58 Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please review the PR for LOG4J2-2639 at >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/284 < >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/284>. This adds new Logger >> methods to allow a builder pattern to be used to accumulate the parameters >> to a logging call before logging the event. I got this idea from messages >> on the SLF4J list but I haven’t looked at that code at all so I have no >> idea how Ceki implemented that. To be honest, the only reason I implemented >> this was because it allows the location information to be exposed and >> calculated in a hopefully more efficient way. I haven’t run tests to verify >> that but the default way of calculating a location only requires looking up >> 2 levels in the call stack instead of dynamically searching for the >> matching FQCN. >> >> I haven’t written the doc for this yet but a typical logging call might >> look like: >> >> logger.atDebug().withLocation().withMessage(*Hello >> {}”).withParameters(“Sam”).withMarker(myMarker).log(); >> >> This feature is only implemented on master as it takes advantage of Java 8 >> default methods to maintain backward compatibility. >> >> Ralph
