On 17.09.2011, at 21:26, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Joern Huxhorn wrote: > >> >> On 17.09.2011, at 18:47, John Vasileff wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Joern Huxhorn wrote: >>> >>> Interesting point on serialization. When would you see serialization >>> happening? Is this primarily for appenders? >>> >> >> SocketAppender is using serialization. Since I'm the author of Lilith ( >> http://lilith.huxhorn.de/ ) I tend to focus on stuff like that. > > Actually, in Log4j 2.0 SocketAppender uses a Layout. The default Layout is > SerializedLayout. If you want to use a LillithLayout you would be free to do > so. > >> >> This is also the reason for the differentiation between the Message instance >> and the (laziliy) formatted message string. A SocketAppender does not have >> any need for a formatted message. It is perfectly valid to skip the >> formatting entirely and simply transmit the message pattern and the message >> parameters (as Strings) to safe some CPU in the logged application. > > I disagree. The SocketAppender should be able to interact with something that > accepts Thrift, Avro, Hession or other serialization protocols or even the > RFC 5424 format. However, in cases where the event is serialized into a > format where the LogEvent will be recreated on the other side of the socket > connection, I agree that formatting the message on the sender's side is not > required.
Your SocketAppender is obviously much improved compared to the Logback one. Having the actual serialization mechanism pluggable is a very good idea. Nevertheless, I assume that simple serialization would be the "reference implementation". I'd, of course, hook in my protobuf implementation... Joern. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
