From that description our approaches have indeed been complimentary. I saw problems in the fundamental core of Log4j and SLF4J/Logback that are in the API, configuration and filtering. I've always considered the Appender and Layout concepts to be more or less OK, except how they were infringed upon by the core (i.e. callAppenders is synchronized). The only significant impact my changes have made to those areas was to make the converters pluggable - PatternLayout does not need to be modified to add new ones. The work done on EnhancedPatternLayout was essential to be able to do that.
I believe we both have agreement that the API should be separate from the implementation. I'm not sure we completely agree on what it should look like. To be honest, I'm still not completely happy with it as I'd like to see an annotation/AOP way of injecting logging wherever possible. If there is a plan it is for Curt and me to continue working on our forks while reviewing each others code. Hopefully he will borrow from my code base and I from his. I'm also hoping others will join in and contribute. Ralph On May 31, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Curt Arnold wrote: > > On May 31, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > >> I just digged a little bit around the code. Besides the projects >> mentioned below there is ralphs stuff. How is it planned to put it all >> together? >> > > You think we have a plan? > > Ralph and I are going in two different, but hopefully eventually > complementary directions. > > My tack was to start with the backend classes like layouts and appenders and > provide a framework which makes them independent of the logging API in use > and designed for concurrency. I started in 2007 and 2008 with the pattern > layout. That went dormant due to other demands and lack of participation. > There were a lot of ideas that I liked that were either in the code or in the > code that I was going to write next and I've been trying to mine the old > project and fill in gaps that had been rattling around in my mind to > hopefully come up with something reasonably fleshed out. > > The approach with commons-logging and SLF4J was to unify on the API. I was > taking the approach of enabling unification at the back end, basically, have > appenders that can process logging events originating from multiple API's. > > Once the back end classes were established, they could be plugged into the > existing frameworks for testing and we could work on establishing a client > facing API designed with the same principles. > > Ralph's approach has been broader, trying to design the whole framework > simultaneously. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
