Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I have reworked the patch to leave these alone and put it on a different git branch. I also opened a ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-343 and attached it as a patch so that if you do not want to deal with git, you can get it from there.
I added instructions on how to get the patch from git to the ticket. On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Nick Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > > Hi, > > I was toying with the log4j 2 API for a new project and I stumbled over > the fact that it uses a generic for Appender<T> without actually being > generic. The only generic part is the Layout. So as a result there is this > weird construct of Appender<SomeSerializableType> which is actually > dictated by the layout in use. > > > I'm relatively new to the team, so I don't know much about the reasoning > behind making Appender generic, so I can't speak to that. I'm not > personally opposed to removing these generics, but that is a HUGE change. > > This leads to really interesting constructs such as > > public abstract class AbstractDatabaseAppender<T extends > AbstractDatabaseManager> extends AbstractAppender<LogEvent> > > > Well this is a very different case. The <LogEvent> here is about Layout, > just as you said. The <T extends AbstractDatabaseManager> is completely > unrelated to Layout and I am _not_ in favor of removing these generics. > > I was wondering whether this is necessary as it makes the API very > cumbersome to use and read so I removed the generic from Appender and > subsequently went through the log4j 2 code base and mostly removed stuff > that was no longer needed once that was gone. The result is at > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1 > > > The Apache GitHub repository is just a mirror of our SVN repository. We > can't accept or use any pull requests there. You need to generate an SVN > patch and attach it to whatever JIRA you create. (As such, you should close > this pull request.) > > I will also file a JIRA for this. > > I know that the 2.0 release should be coming soon (being at beta8), but I > feel that making that change in the API before it is set in stone with 2.0 > woulc be really beneficial for anyone who wants to port code to 2.0 / write > new code. > > > I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion about this over the next few > days. > > Thanks for considering, > Henning > > > Nick >
