I don't believe I've received any follow-up yet on the account.
On 2 March 2014 19:30, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > Fine by me. If you have gotten your account set up go ahead and make the > change. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
