How about something like LogListener or LogEventListener? It definitely follows the pattern to be a listener class.
On 2 March 2014 15:55, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > While it is not truly abstract it does act as the base class for > AbstractJMSReceiver (which JMSQueueReceiver and JMSTopicReceiver both > extend), SocketServer, and UDPSocketServer. On its own, AbstractServer > doesn’t really do anything. But they all end up calling the log method, > which is really why AbstractServer exists. > > An interface provides no functionality. The point of the class is that > all the Receivers share the log method implementation. > > While the name may not be accurate, several of us dislike naming classes > “Base”Xxxxx or XxxxxBase (i.e. ServerBase, ReceiverBase, etc). If you can > suggest a better name I’d be OK with changing it. > > Ralph > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > org.apache.logging.log4j.core.AbstractServer > > 1. It's not abstract. > 2. As it's not abstract, there are no abstract methods or any common > interface really. > > That being said, would it make more sense for this to be an interface with > a simple log(LogEvent) method defined? Perhaps calling this class > "AbstractServer", while demonstrating its usage, is a poor name for what it > actually does. > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
