On Sep 18, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Joern Huxhorn wrote: > > Well, I could give you my protobuf but I'm not sure if it makes sense to add > it to Log4J directly. > > It contains more (optional) fields than Log4J will provide, partially since > populating those fields has a performance impact. JUL has an event id by > Thread but providing them would require ThreadLocal handling of the counter, > i.e. reduces performance for very little additional info. Who would really > use this information? > I keep those infos in Lilith so it can import/receive events lossless but I > don't think that Log4J should support them.
Hmmm. I faced something similar in the Flume Appender. You might want to look at the UUIDUtil class. It generates a UUID that should be unique across servers for 8,925 years. > > So it's probably best to keep this out of the Log4J codebase. If we add it > then we'd have to coordinate future extension. If we leave it out as a > third-party implementation of the SocketAppender layout then I can just > change it as needed. OK. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
