On 09/03/2010 11:45 AM, Joern Huxhorn wrote:
What would it take to convince you?
The addition of Message support would solve problems like the following in an unintrusive http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116 (java.util.Formatter support) http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148 (StructuredData support, RFC 5424) http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LBCLASSIC-76 (Allow extension of LoggingEvent with new data)
Well, I haven't yet come across a convincing use case or maybe I have but failed to grasp its significance. Anyway, it seems to me that RFC 5424 defines a text-based encoding scheme more than anything else. It follows that RFC 5424 could be supported by logback simply by composing FileAppender with an appropriate encoder, say RFC5424Encoder. Encoders are new in 0.9.19. This encoder could not only encode the contents of the message but other logging event fields such as time, logger, level as well which is probably what you really want. Does the RFC5424Encoder make sense? Regarding the encoding of the message contents, I think it can be addressed by convention: 1) message parameter implements some well known interface, say RFC4224Aware or 2) message parameter implements some well known method "toRFC5424(): String"" Given that SLF4J already allows you to write logger.debug("{}", myRFC5424AwareData); putting aside the issue location awareness, I fail to see the point of changing the org.slf4j.Logger interface to add support for typed-messages especially considering that one can easily write an SLF4J-extension with the appropriate syntactical sugar: class MesssageLogger { Logger logger; void debug(Message msg) { logger.debug("{}", msg); } ... } BTW, I've started looking at both Ralph and Joern's proposals. -- Ceki