Andy,

The api for the Receiver is still open to changes.  I need to refresh
myself, but I believe it inherits the shutdown() method signature from the
Plugin interface where "shutdown" makes more contextual sense than "close".
At least I thought so at the time of the design.

While they are mirrors in functionality, I don't know if it is strictly
required that they follow the exact same api.  But I can be convinced
otherwise.  Are there other aspects of the api that you would consider
changing?  I am open to review/suggestions.  I plan to do a more thorough
pass in the near future.

thanks,
-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: close() an Appender vs shutdown() a Receiver


> Hi,
>
> As the Receiver performs the mirror function of the
> Appender, would there be merit in striving to make the two
> API's as similar as possible?
>
> When writing an appender you have to implement the close()
> method, but when writing a Receiver you have to implement
> shutdown() but I believe the intended purpose to be the
> same.
>
> It may ease the introduction of Receivers in 1.3 if the
> API were familiar to existing appender developers.
>
> As 1.3 seems to be considered an alpha release, is it too
> late to simply rename the shutdown() method in
> org.apache.log4j.plugins.Plugin to close()?
>
> I can supply a patch for the current cvs tip if a
> committer would like to pursue this.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Andy
> The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person
or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material.  If You are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail,
> the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is
> Prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.  The views
> expressed in this e-mail may not necessarily be the views of The PCMS
Group
> plc and should not be taken as authority to carry out any instruction
> contained.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to