Sure, of course. On Wednesday, August 14, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
> 4:30 a.m.... > > And I knew you weren't asking for reviews, but I would like to review it > if that's okay. > > N > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:18 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > > I didn't mean to ask for more reviews for the patch (although always > welcome of course), I just didn't want to modify many files without > warning. Are you in the middle of a big work-in-progress? > > (And isn't it like 3 AM where you are? :-) > > Remko > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013, Nick Williams wrote: > > Please hold off until the weekend if you can. I won't get a chance to look > over it until then. > > Nick > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 3:32 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > > Patch looks nice. Much fewer "raw type" compiler warnings. Seems like a > big improvement to me. > > A small improvement on the patch would be to remove the (now unnecessary) > @param <T> javadoc comments. I have that additional change done in my local > workspace. > > I wouldn't mind committing this but I don't want to disrupt anyone's > work-in-progress: the patch modifies about 125 files. > > Is everyone ok with me committing this? I'll hold off for a day or two (or > less if we're all ok with this). > > Remko > > On Monday, August 12, 2013, Ralph Goers wrote: > > I've briefly glanced at your patch and it looks reasonable to me. It > leaves the Layout to continue to use generics but removes the generics from > the Appenders. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. > > Ralph > > On Aug 11, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > > 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 shou > >
