Done in r1574222.
On 2 March 2014 20:16, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't believe I've received any follow-up yet on the account. > > > On 2 March 2014 19:30, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
