Actually, it was that simple but you made it more complicated by creating a Map of Maps. Why is that needed?
I am not convinced this is a good idea. Ralph On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:49 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm updating log4j-jdk to use log4j-core if available. A similar pattern > might be useful for the 1.2 bridge. Plus, the duplicate code isn't just the > map; it's everything in AbstractExternalLoggerContextRegistry. Here, take a > look: > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=logging-log4j2.git;a=blob_plain;f=log4j-api/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/spi/AbstractExternalLoggerContextRegistry.java;h=9e7a8fcdf43eae0a3ac0eb2163ab1da39bbce987;hb=LOG4J2-608 > > > On 1 September 2014 22:24, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I would recommend trying to make log4j-jdk dependent only on the log4j 2 > api. However, if there is some functionality that is crucial to how jul > works then go ahead and make it be dependent on core. I believe getParents() > is the reason the log4j 1.2 bridge is dependent on core. > > Ralph > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh man, should I make log4j-jdk depend only on log4j-api then? That limits >> functionality. No support for setLevel(), getParent(), plus it limits the >> ability to add support for Handler classes in the future (I already added >> support for JUL's Filter interface). >> >> The duplicate code is also in log4j-1.2-api. Here's a snippet: >> >> private static final Map<LoggerContext, ConcurrentMap<String, Logger>> >> CONTEXT_MAP = >> new WeakHashMap<LoggerContext, ConcurrentMap<String, Logger>>(); >> >> I'll refactor this one, too, so you can see it all together in the >> LOG4J2-608 branch. >> >> >> On 1 September 2014 21:26, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> I disagree. We already get comaints that the log4j 1.2 bridge requires core. >> Keeping it separate allows for other implementations. Frankly, I'm not sure >> the code Matt is talking about is a big enough deal to bother refactoring it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I haven't looked at the code (don't know how much duplicate code we're >>> talking about), but in general I would prefer putting shared logic in core, >>> to keep the published api as small as possible. All the bridge modules need >>> core to do useful work anyway... >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 2014/09/02, at 5:50, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes exactly. It would be either do that, or make log4j-slf4j-impl and >>>> log4j-jcl depend on log4j-core. I'm not actually sure why they don't >>>> already depend on core other than the fact that they can get away without >>>> using it. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1 September 2014 15:40, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> So are you suggesting we put the new code in the API SPI package and not >>>> in core to avoid dragging in the core jar? >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Matt Sicker >>>> Date:09/01/2014 14:16 (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>> Subject: Small addition to API suggestion. >>>> >>>> I'm working on the JDK/JUL bridge again, and I noticed that there's a bit >>>> of code duplication occurring in log4j-slf4j-impl as well as log4j-jcl. >>>> This duplication is further duplicated in log4j-jdk which I'm working on >>>> right now. >>>> >>>> The duplication is making a weak hash map of LoggerContext to >>>> ConcurrentMap<String, L> where L is some external logger class. What I'm >>>> proposing is a simple SPI class I've temporarily called >>>> ExternalLoggerContextRegistry<L>. The purpose of this interface is to >>>> provide a standardized way to keep track of external loggers that are >>>> bridged with Log4j loggers. >>>> >>>> I'll push this work into a branch called LOG4J2-608 which is the JDK >>>> logging bridge ticket. Class names are obviously not final. I wanted to >>>> put this in core instead of api, but the bridges all use just the API. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
