Re: [VOTE] Additions to the Appender interface

[Paul Smith]

[X] Refuse those additions - in favour of Yoav's proposal (plus Curt's suggestion of activate being final method in AppenderSkeleton). If this does not get us what we want and does not have a significant burden on us, then I'm in favour of revisting the issue as a group I was going to suggest an "Appender2" sub-interface until I saw how lame that was in comparison... Paul Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi, [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=110874743313972&w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=110875656008077&w=2 OK, thanks, that was very useful. <vote> [] Accept the additions to the Appender interface [X] Refuse those additions [ ] Abstain </vote> I suggest the following: - Add new AppenderLifecycle interface. This interface would have methods like activate(), isActive(), isClosed(), and would be the future way to add more lifecycle-related stuff. - Mark activateOptions in Appender deprecated, with a prominent notice that it is slated for future removal and has been replaced by the activate method in AppenderLifecycle interface. - Make AppenderSkeleton (and other classes if necessary) implement AppenderLifecycle as needed. Yoav --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]