I just checked out your code at https://github.com/jvasileff/slf4j/blob/topic-jdk5-varargs/slf4j-api/src/main/java/org/slf4j/Logger.java (only that file so far) and I can tell you that this interface won't be compatible with jdk1.4.
Yes, I know, this is the jdk5 proposal. But I agree with Ceki that there should be an interface staying jdk1.4-compatible. This is not only relevant for ordinary Java but also for stuff like JavaME. Also, the Message interface is only used in the log-method and not in case of the explicit methods like debug, info, etc. Third, Loggers in your proposal are mutable. Changing the formatter of a logger is a very bad idea™. I explained this earlier. Joern. On 17.09.2011, at 20:39, John Vasileff wrote: > Joern, I can't help but think having Entry objects that include Level & > Marker is a major sticking point with this. I put more thought into Entry > objects, and have reached a couple conclusions. First, with the other > proposed changes, this feature could be added later without breaking things > using a LevelProvidingMessage and corresponding Logger method. Second, one > of the major advantages is the ability for an Entry to determine its own > Level and Marker. But this comes at a performance cost as the Entry would > have to be constructed prior to checking isEnabled. > > So, with that, I reworked my branch to have Message objects that more closely > resemble those in your branch. (The current Message objects are rudimentary > and would need to be updated with the work from your branch.) > > To recap, this proposal includes: > > - Much simplified adapter implementation requirements while improving > separation of concerns and freedom for future slf4j-api innovation. > - Binary and source compatibility with 1.6.x adapters and application code. > - Support for new Logger methods including Message objects when using legacy > adapters. > - No change in the package names for org.slf4j.Logger, LoggerFactory, etc. > > - Resolves the following: > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=245 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=243 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=242 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31 > > - Resolves confusion behind the following: > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213 > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=240 > > - Allows easy addition of (if desired): > http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133 > > > John > _______________________________________________ > slf4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev _______________________________________________ slf4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev
