[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13714437#comment-13714437
]
Nick Williams commented on LOG4J2-242:
--------------------------------------
I'd like to take a stab at this. I have some pretty cool ideas for it to make
it efficient in a no-log scenario.
Gary, have no fear. This will only be an addition to the current API. We will
NOT force people to use the fluent API. Heck, I don't WANT to use it. But I'm
pretty good with fluent APIs. :)
> Make Messages more fluent
> -------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-242
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-242
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API
> Affects Versions: 2.0-beta5
> Reporter: Bruce Brouwer
>
> I really like the feature were we can pass in a Message object into the
> logger methods. However, it bugs me that some of the implementations of
> Message provide vararg constructors, and others only provide an Object[]
> parameter. I really would like to write this code:
> log.info(new ParameterizedMessage("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz),
> throwable);
> I realize that this particular example would work with this code by default:
> log.info("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz, throwable);
> But the other Message implementations don't provide a vararg constructor, nor
> do they try to detect the last parameter as a Throwable.
> [LOG4J2-48] addresses some of the complexity of having varargs with the last
> vararg being an implicit final parameter, but again, this only works with
> ParameterizedMessage. But I would like this to be more consistent across the
> board. One idea that I had was this:
> log.info(new ParameterizedMessage("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc,
> xyz).throwing(throwable));
> Now all of the message constructors (not just ParameterizedMessage) could
> have varargs with none of them providing a Throwable parameter in the
> constructor, but provided through a more fluent API. I don't know that it
> would warrant adding it to the Message interface, but we could go further
> with it by adding these methods:
> Message withParameters(Object... parameters);
> Message throwing(Throwable throwable);
> It wouldn't be absolutely necessary as the concrete implementations could
> define that and work in my case.
> Another idea that I had was maybe a bit more impactful to the Logger API.
> What if I wrote my code like this:
> log.with(exception).info("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz);
> // or maybe this
> log.message("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz).with(exception).info();
> That would necessitate something like a LogBuilder interface, maybe tie it
> into the MessageFactory classes. This LogBuilder interface could have these
> methods:
> LogBuilder message(String pattern, Object... params);
> LogBuilder with(Throwable t);
> LogBuilder marker(Marker marker);
> LogBuilder level(Level level);
> void info(); // and others like it
> void info(String pattern, Object... params); // and others like it
> I'm not exactly sure what the best way would be to go and implement this as
> I'm sure you don't want to have objects created all over the place.
> Is this an idea worth pursuing a bit further?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
