[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1300?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15171409#comment-15171409
]
Matt Sicker commented on LOG4J2-1300:
-------------------------------------
I'm considering making the following interfaces extend Serializable, though
it's not strictly necessary:
* Appender
* Filter
* Layout
* ErrorHandler
* Configuration
* StrLookup
All implementations of these interfaces in Log4j already support or are now
adding support for Serializable. Would it break backwards compatibility to add
Serializable, or are there any other reasons not to go this route?
> Make plugins consistently implement Serializable
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1300
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1300
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Appenders, Core, Filters, Layouts, Lookups, Pattern
> Converters, Plugins
> Affects Versions: 2.5
> Reporter: Matt Sicker
> Assignee: Matt Sicker
> Fix For: 2.6
>
>
> Appenders and Filters are already supposed to be Serializable based on the
> abstract classes. Following this to its logical conclusion, pretty much every
> plugin has to be serializable. Most of these already are or could be
> supported through their abstract classes. Some of these classes are using
> non-serializable classes which need to also implement Serializable or provide
> a serialization proxy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
